4.7 Article

Microwave versus radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of liver malignancies: a randomized controlled phase 2 trial

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-03802-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish Government [FIS-PI12/00799]
  2. Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades under Programa Estatal de I+D+i Orientada a los Retos de la Sociedad [RTI2018-094357-B-C21]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares the effectiveness and safety of MWA and RFA in hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastasis. The results showed that there were no significant differences between MWA and RFA in terms of ablation zone size, SLR, effectiveness, and safety.
Microwave (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are main ablative techniques for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (MT). This randomized phase 2 clinical trial compares the effectiveness of MWA and RFA as well as morphology of corresponding ablation zones. HCC and MT patients with 1.5-4 cm tumors, suitable for ablation, were randomized into MWA or RFA Groups. The primary endpoint was short-to-long diameter ratio of ablation zone (SLR). Primary technical success (TS) and a cumulative local tumor progression (LTP) after a median 2-year follow-up were compared. Between June 2015 and April 2020, 82 patients were randomly assigned (41 patients per group). For the per-protocol analysis, five patients were excluded. MWA created larger ablation zones than RFA (p = 0.036) although without differences in SLR (0.5 for both groups, p = 0.229). The TS was achieved in 98% (46/47) and 90% (45/50) (p = 0.108), and LTP was observed in 21% (10/47) vs. 12% (6/50) (OR 1.9 [95% CI 0.66-5.3], p = 0.238) of tumors in MWA vs. RFA Group, respectively. Major complications were found in 5 cases (11%) vs. 2 cases (4%), without statistical significance. MWA and RFA show similar SLR, effectiveness and safety in liver tumors between 1.5 and 4 cm.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据