Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound versus percutaneous thermal ablation in local control of bone oligometastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Mario Leporace, Valentina Lancellotta, Valentina Baccolini, Ferdinando Calabria, Francesca Castrovillari, Dimitrios K. Filippiadis, Luca Tagliaferri, Roberto Iezzi
{"title":"Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound versus percutaneous thermal ablation in local control of bone oligometastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Mario Leporace, Valentina Lancellotta, Valentina Baccolini, Ferdinando Calabria, Francesca Castrovillari, Dimitrios K. Filippiadis, Luca Tagliaferri, Roberto Iezzi","doi":"10.1007/s11547-024-01780-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>The percutaneous thermal ablation techniques (pTA) are radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation, and microwave ablation, suitable for the treatment of bone oligometastases. Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) is a noninvasive ablation technique.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objectives</h3><p>To compare the effectiveness and safety of MRgFUS and pTA for treating bone oligometastases and their complications.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>Studies were selected with a PICO/PRISMA protocol: pTA or MRgFUS in patients with bone oligometastases; non-exclusive curative treatment. Exclusion criteria were: primary bone tumor; concurrent radiation therapy; palliative therapy; and absence of imaging at follow-up. PubMed, BioMed Central, and Scopus were searched. The modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale assessed articles quality. For each treatment (pTA and MRgFUS), we conducted two separate random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the pooled effectiveness and safety. The effectiveness was assessed by combining the proportions of treated lesions achieving local tumor control (LTC); the safety by combining the complications rates of treated patients. Meta-regression analyses were performed to identify any outcome predictor.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>A total of 24 articles were included. Pooled LTC rate for MRgFUS was 84% (<i>N</i> = 7, 95% CI 66–97%, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 74.7%) compared to 65% of pTA (<i>N</i> = 17, 95% CI 51–78%, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 89.3%). Pooled complications rate was similar, respectively, 13% (95% CI 1–32%, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 81.0%) for MRgFUS and 12% (95% CI 8–18%, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 39.9%) for pTA, but major complications were recorded with pTA only.</p><p>The meta-regression analyses, including technique type, study design, tumor, and follow-up, found no significant predictors.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Discussion</h3><p>The effectiveness and safety of the two techniques were found comparable, even though MRgFUS is a noninvasive treatment that did not cause any major complication. Limited data availability on MRgFUS and the lack of direct comparisons with pTA may affect these findings.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>MRgFUS can be a valid, safe, and noninvasive treatment for bone oligometastases. Direct comparison studies are needed to confirm its promising benefits.</p>","PeriodicalId":501689,"journal":{"name":"La radiologia medica","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"La radiologia medica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-024-01780-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The percutaneous thermal ablation techniques (pTA) are radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation, and microwave ablation, suitable for the treatment of bone oligometastases. Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) is a noninvasive ablation technique.

Objectives

To compare the effectiveness and safety of MRgFUS and pTA for treating bone oligometastases and their complications.

Methods

Studies were selected with a PICO/PRISMA protocol: pTA or MRgFUS in patients with bone oligometastases; non-exclusive curative treatment. Exclusion criteria were: primary bone tumor; concurrent radiation therapy; palliative therapy; and absence of imaging at follow-up. PubMed, BioMed Central, and Scopus were searched. The modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale assessed articles quality. For each treatment (pTA and MRgFUS), we conducted two separate random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the pooled effectiveness and safety. The effectiveness was assessed by combining the proportions of treated lesions achieving local tumor control (LTC); the safety by combining the complications rates of treated patients. Meta-regression analyses were performed to identify any outcome predictor.

Results

A total of 24 articles were included. Pooled LTC rate for MRgFUS was 84% (N = 7, 95% CI 66–97%, I2 = 74.7%) compared to 65% of pTA (N = 17, 95% CI 51–78%, I2 = 89.3%). Pooled complications rate was similar, respectively, 13% (95% CI 1–32%, I2 = 81.0%) for MRgFUS and 12% (95% CI 8–18%, I2 = 39.9%) for pTA, but major complications were recorded with pTA only.

The meta-regression analyses, including technique type, study design, tumor, and follow-up, found no significant predictors.

Discussion

The effectiveness and safety of the two techniques were found comparable, even though MRgFUS is a noninvasive treatment that did not cause any major complication. Limited data availability on MRgFUS and the lack of direct comparisons with pTA may affect these findings.

Conclusions

MRgFUS can be a valid, safe, and noninvasive treatment for bone oligometastases. Direct comparison studies are needed to confirm its promising benefits.

Abstract Image

磁共振引导下聚焦超声与经皮热消融在局部控制骨寡转移瘤方面的比较:系统综述与荟萃分析
背景经皮热消融技术(pTA)包括射频消融、冷冻消融和微波消融,适用于治疗骨寡转移瘤。目的比较 MRgFUS 和 pTA 治疗骨少转移瘤的有效性和安全性及其并发症。方法按照 PICO/PRISMA 方案选择研究:pTA 或 MRgFUS 治疗骨少转移瘤患者;非独家根治性治疗。排除标准为:原发性骨肿瘤;同时接受放射治疗;姑息治疗;随访时未进行影像学检查。对 PubMed、BioMed Central 和 Scopus 进行了检索。文章质量采用修正的纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表进行评估。对于每种治疗方法(pTA 和 MRgFUS),我们分别进行了两次随机效应荟萃分析,以估算汇总的有效性和安全性。有效性通过综合治疗病灶达到局部肿瘤控制(LTC)的比例来评估;安全性通过综合治疗患者的并发症发生率来评估。进行元回归分析以确定任何结果预测因素。MRgFUS的总体LTC率为84%(N = 7,95% CI 66-97%,I2 = 74.7%),而pTA为65%(N = 17,95% CI 51-78%,I2 = 89.3%)。包括技术类型、研究设计、肿瘤和随访在内的元回归分析未发现显著的预测因素。讨论尽管MRgFUS是一种非侵入性治疗方法,不会引起任何重大并发症,但两种技术的有效性和安全性相当。结论MRgFUS是一种有效、安全和无创的骨少突转移治疗方法。需要进行直接比较研究,以确认其前景光明的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信