“Thank you for your proposal for percutaneous ablation, but curatively ablating this type of tumor is not currently recommended …” The sensation that interventional oncology (IO) would have been an ideal solution to solve a given oncological problem is a known and unpleasant feeling of most interventional radiologists attending multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTB). The skepticism about percutaneous ablative treatments was initially understandable given the lack of high-quality evidence. Over the last 10 years, and especially during the last 5–6 years, studies of good quality were issued, including in non-radiological journals. Most of them were retrospective and observational but still paved the way for wider use of IO as a local curative treatment. These well-conducted studies, however, most frequently failed to translate into the integration of IO in the rules and principles to treat cancer, i.e., in the sacrosanct guidelines that provide clear recommendations for treatment. But things are moving. This is mostly due to the oncological community opening itself up to learn not only from prospective randomized trials but also from well-designed observational studies [
1]. These studies are most likely to reflect the real daily life practices and provide results for tumors that are difficult to analyze, a typical example being rare tumors, such as aggressive fibromatosis also known as desmoid tumors (DT). …
