www.interventionalnews.com
Interview: RSNA gold medallist Anne Roberts March 2024 | Issue 93
page 14
Profile: Alda Tam
PAIRS: IR training pathway roundtable
page 16
page 15
SIR PREVIEW
Late-breaking analysis set to expose the ‘why and how’ of endovascular technical failure in CLTI patients
Unifying IO globally: IASIOS reports first USaccredited centre The International Accreditation System for Interventional Oncology Services (IASIOS) is the world’s first accreditation programme focused exclusively on standardising interventional oncology (IO) care, redefining the rapidly evolving field. Reporting record growth exceeding 150% in 2023, IASIOS recently announced their first accredited facility in the USA, a significant milestone which marked its expansion to a new and major corner of the international IO community.
“I
t’s accreditation and unification,” said Jack Jennings on behalf of the newly accredited Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology (MIR) at Washington University in St Louis, USA. Embarking on their IASIOS accreditation process, Jennings and his team were driven by the opportunity to strengthen bonds with the physicians of IASIOS’ international network. This “alliance”, and mutual dedication to improving quality and safety in IO, is more relevant today than ever, Jennings conveyed, as the specialty does the groundwork for the “steep and rapid incline” of IO procedures in this booming faction of interventional radiology (IR). In a comment to Interventional News, chair of the IASIOS supervisory board Andreas Adam (Kings College London, London, UK) shared that the global nature of IASIOS is one of its greatest strengths, as it emphasises certain universal concepts such as IRs looking after their own patients. Remarking on the recent USA accreditation, Adam stated that MIR’s enrolment is a “major milestone” in IASIOS’ history. “The USA is the birthplace of IR and the largest provider of IR services. We are delighted to welcome the MIR, as its accreditation is a perfect demonstration of the universality of the principles on which IASIOS is founded.”
A world-first accreditation programme
IASIOS is the world’s first accreditation system focused solely on upholding quality assurance for minimally-invasive treatments for cancer. Due to the continued growth and
Clockwise to centre: Liz Kenny, David Breen, Rodrigo Gobbo, Murat Dökdök, Mark Burgmans, Andreas Adam, Jack Jennings
recognition of IO as a key clinical discipline and the fourth pillar of cancer care, consensus has dictated that centres providing IO treatments must adhere to robust guidelines to ensure a universally high standard of care. During its conception, the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) lifted the current quality assurance standards for radiation oncology—developed by The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR)—as a template which was well aligned with the practice of IO. The fruits of this labour—the CIRSE Standards of Quality Assurance in Interventional Oncology—establishes a “gold standard” in patient care and safeguarding in IO. Yet, as RANZCR president at the time and current steering board member of IASIOS Liz Kenny (Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Herston, Queensland Australia) noted, IO is “still a
SET TO BE PRESENTED AT THE upcoming Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) annual scientific meeting (23–28 March, Salt Lake City, USA), an anticipated latebreaking analysis of the BEST-CLI (Best endovascular versus best surgical therapy in patients with critical limb ischaemia) trial will expose the cause and significant impact that endovascular technical failure (ETF) had on patient outcomes. In doing so, the investigators hope to provide a granular, contextual understanding of why these failures happen in realworld practice. Published in 2022, the BESTCLI trial results found surgical intervention superior to endovascular revascularisation. Split into two cohorts based on the availability of suitable single segment greater saphenous vein (SSGSV) for bypass, BEST-CLI enrolees were randomised in a 1:1 fashion to either surgery with SSGSV bypass or endovascular treatment (cohort 1), or surgery with an alternate bypass conduit or endovascular treatment (cohort 2). Enrolment criteria required reasonable surgical risk and anatomy suitable for both bypass and endovascular treatment. The results showed that technical success was 98.3% vs. 84.7% for cohort 1, and 100% versus 80.6% in cohort 2, respectively. Technical failure rates in both cohorts markedly contributed to the difference in outcome between surgery and endovascular outcomes in both groups, but the reason these failures occurred was unclear. This formed the basis for Richard Powell (Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, USA) et al’s analysis which sought to evaluate the causes and impacts of ETF on outcomes. Powell, speaking to Interventional News, explains that the BESTCLI findings offered a close-toaccurate representation of real-world endovascular treatment experience. “If you look at a lot of studies carried out by industry there are very low rates of Continued on page 5
Continued on page 4