...
首页> 外文期刊>The oncologist >Radiofrequency Ablation and Microwave Ablation in Liver Tumors: An Update
【24h】

Radiofrequency Ablation and Microwave Ablation in Liver Tumors: An Update

机译:肝脏肿瘤的射频消融和微波消融:更新

获取原文

摘要

This article provides an overview of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) for treatment of primary liver tumors and hepatic metastasis. Only studies reporting RFA and MWA safety and efficacy on liver were retained. We found 40 clinical studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. RFA has become an established treatment modality because of its efficacy, reproducibility, low complication rates, and availability. MWA has several advantages over RFA, which may make it more attractive to treat hepatic tumors. According to the literature, the overall survival, local recurrence, complication rates, disease-free survival, and mortality in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with RFA vary between 53.2 ± 3.0 months and 66 months, between 59.8% and 63.1%, between 2% and 10.5%, between 22.0 ± 2.6 months and 39 months, and between 0% and 1.2%, respectively. According to the literature, overall survival, local recurrence, complication rates, disease-free survival, and mortality in patients with HCC treated with MWA (compared with RFA) vary between 22 months for focal lesion 3 cm (vs. 21 months) and 50 months for focal lesion ≤3 cm (vs. 27 months), between 5% (vs. 46.6%) and 17.8% (vs. 18.2%), between 2.2% (vs. 0%) and 61.5% (vs. 45.4%), between 14 months (vs. 10.5 months) and 22 months (vs. no data reported), and between 0% (vs. 0%) and 15% (vs. 36%), respectively. According to the literature, the overall survival, local recurrence, complication rates, and mortality in liver metastases patients treated with RFA (vs. MWA) are not statistically different for both the survival times from primary tumor diagnosis and survival times from ablation, between 10% (vs. 6%) and 35.7% (vs. 39.6), between 1.1% (vs. 3.1%) and 24% (vs. 27%), and between 0% (vs. 0%) and 2% (vs. 0.3%). MWA should be considered the technique of choice in selected patients, when the tumor is ≥3 cm in diameter or is close to large vessels, independent of its size. Implications for Practice Although technical features of the radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) are similar, the differences arise from the physical phenomenon used to generate heat. RFA has become an established treatment modality because of its efficacy, reproducibility, low complication rates, and availability. MWA has several advantages over RFA, which may make it more attractive than RFA to treat hepatic tumors. The benefits of MWA are an improved convection profile, higher constant intratumoral temperatures, faster ablation times, and the ability to use multiple probes to treat multiple lesions simultaneously. MWA should be considered the technique of choice when the tumor is ≥3 cm in diameter or is close to large vessels, independent of its size.
机译:本文概述了射频消融(RFA)和微波消融(MWA)的概述,用于治疗原发性肝肿瘤和肝转移。只保留了报告RFA和MWA安全性和肝脏疗效的研究。我们发现40项临床研究,满足了纳入标准。 RFA已成为既定的治疗方式,因为其有效性,再现性,低并发症率和可用性。 MWA与RFA有几个优点,这可能使其对治疗肝脏肿瘤更具吸引力。根据文献,患有RFA治疗的肝细胞癌(HCC)患者的整体存活,局部复发,并发症率,无病生存和死亡率在53.2±3.0个月和66个月之间,介于59.8%和63.1%之间, 2%至10.5%,22.0±2.6个月和39个月,分别为0%和1.2%。根据文献,全部存活,局部复发,并发症率,患有MWA(与RFA相比)的患者患者的无病生存和死亡率在22个月之间为22个月,局灶性病变& 3厘米(与21个月) 50个月的局灶性病变≤3厘米(与27个月),5%(vs.46.6%)和17.8%(与18.2%),2.2%(与0%)和61.5%(与45.4%),14个月(与10.5个月)和22个月(报告的数据),分别为0%(与0%)和15%(与36%)。根据文献,肝脏转移患者的整体存活,局部复发,并发症率和死亡率在患有RFA(与MWA)治疗的患者对从发原子肿瘤诊断和生存期的生存时间没有统计学不同,从消融之间的生存时间之间%(vs.6%)和35.7%(与39.6),1.1%(与3.1%)和24%(与27%),0%(与0%)和2%(Vs 。0.3%)。 MWA应被视为选定患者中的选择技术,当肿瘤的直径≥3厘米或接近大容器时,无关。对实践的影响尽管射频消融(RFA)和微波消融(MWA)的技术特征类似,但从用于产生热量的物理现象出现的差异。 RFA已成为既定的治疗方式,因为其有效性,再现性,低并发症率和可用性。 MWA与RFA有几个优点,这可能比RFA更具吸引力,以治疗肝脏肿瘤。 MWA的益处是改善的对流曲线,较高的肿瘤内温度,更快的消融时间,以及使用多种探针同时处理多个病变的能力。当肿瘤的直径≥3厘米或接近大容器时,应考虑MWA的选择技术,无关。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号