Comparative efficacy of different thermal ablation and conventional surgery for the treatment of Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinoma: Systematic review including traditional pooling and Bayesian network meta-analysis

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Xidong Xu , Ying Peng , Guoxin Han
{"title":"Comparative efficacy of different thermal ablation and conventional surgery for the treatment of Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinoma: Systematic review including traditional pooling and Bayesian network meta-analysis","authors":"Xidong Xu ,&nbsp;Ying Peng ,&nbsp;Guoxin Han","doi":"10.1016/j.amjoto.2024.104479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To compare the efficacy of different thermal ablation and conventional surgery for the treatment of Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinoma, using a systematic review including traditional pooling and Bayesian network meta-analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>A comprehensive literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases identified retrospective studies evaluating the tumor volume change after different thermal ablation or conventional surgery. Studies from the date of their inception to January 6, 2024, were included. A review of 4463 potential papers, including a full-text review of 23, identified 10 eligible papers covering a total of 2658 patients for meta-analysis. The tumor volume change over a 12-month follow-up was compared between different thermal ablations. Tumor diameter change, complications, recurrence, operation and hospitalization time were evaluated by network meta-analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Based on the traditional frequentist approach, the overall pooled estimates for the standardized mean difference (SMD) in tumor volume change of radiofrequency ablation (RFA), laser ablation (LA), and microwave ablation (MWA) were 1.38 (95 % credibility interval (CI), 0.62–2.13), 1.94 (95%CI, 0.78–3.10) and 1.38 (95%CI, 1.01–1.75), respectively. Based on the Bayesian network meta-analysis, in examining the surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) ranking, RFA (SUCRA, 76.6), MWA (SUCRA, 66.6), and LA (SUCRA, 39.8) were identified as the three interventions that were associated with the greatest reduction in risk for complications compared with conventional surgery (CS), with RFA (SUCRA, 76.6) being ranked as the highest in safety. MWA, SMD 4.43 [95%CI, 2.68–6.17], RFA SMD 4.24 [95 % CI, 1.66–6.82], and LA SMD 4.24 [95 % CI, 1.48–7.00] were associated with the shorter operation time compared with CS. LA SMD 4.61 [95 % CI, 1.79–7.44] and MWA SMD 3.07 [95 % CI, 1.32–4.83] were associated with the shorter hospitalization time compared with CS, with LA (SUCRA, 86.5) yielding the highest ranking. MWA was associated with a reduced risk for tumor recurrence RR 0.02 [95 % CI, −0.44-0.49], compared with CS.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We conducted a comprehensive review of the published literature on the effectiveness and safety of different thermal ablation techniques and conventional surgery for papillary thyroid microcarcinoma. Important research gaps persist due to a lack of long-term data and high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7591,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Otolaryngology","volume":"45 6","pages":"Article 104479"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196070924002655","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the efficacy of different thermal ablation and conventional surgery for the treatment of Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinoma, using a systematic review including traditional pooling and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Materials and methods

A comprehensive literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases identified retrospective studies evaluating the tumor volume change after different thermal ablation or conventional surgery. Studies from the date of their inception to January 6, 2024, were included. A review of 4463 potential papers, including a full-text review of 23, identified 10 eligible papers covering a total of 2658 patients for meta-analysis. The tumor volume change over a 12-month follow-up was compared between different thermal ablations. Tumor diameter change, complications, recurrence, operation and hospitalization time were evaluated by network meta-analysis.

Results

Based on the traditional frequentist approach, the overall pooled estimates for the standardized mean difference (SMD) in tumor volume change of radiofrequency ablation (RFA), laser ablation (LA), and microwave ablation (MWA) were 1.38 (95 % credibility interval (CI), 0.62–2.13), 1.94 (95%CI, 0.78–3.10) and 1.38 (95%CI, 1.01–1.75), respectively. Based on the Bayesian network meta-analysis, in examining the surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) ranking, RFA (SUCRA, 76.6), MWA (SUCRA, 66.6), and LA (SUCRA, 39.8) were identified as the three interventions that were associated with the greatest reduction in risk for complications compared with conventional surgery (CS), with RFA (SUCRA, 76.6) being ranked as the highest in safety. MWA, SMD 4.43 [95%CI, 2.68–6.17], RFA SMD 4.24 [95 % CI, 1.66–6.82], and LA SMD 4.24 [95 % CI, 1.48–7.00] were associated with the shorter operation time compared with CS. LA SMD 4.61 [95 % CI, 1.79–7.44] and MWA SMD 3.07 [95 % CI, 1.32–4.83] were associated with the shorter hospitalization time compared with CS, with LA (SUCRA, 86.5) yielding the highest ranking. MWA was associated with a reduced risk for tumor recurrence RR 0.02 [95 % CI, −0.44-0.49], compared with CS.

Conclusion

We conducted a comprehensive review of the published literature on the effectiveness and safety of different thermal ablation techniques and conventional surgery for papillary thyroid microcarcinoma. Important research gaps persist due to a lack of long-term data and high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

不同热消融术和传统手术治疗甲状腺乳头状微癌的疗效比较:包括传统汇总和贝叶斯网络荟萃分析在内的系统综述。
目的:比较不同热消融术和传统手术治疗甲状腺乳头状微腺癌的疗效,采用包括传统汇总和贝叶斯网络荟萃分析在内的系统综述方法:在 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Cochrane Library 数据库中进行了全面的文献检索,确定了评估不同热消融或传统手术后肿瘤体积变化的回顾性研究。纳入的研究时间从研究开始之日到 2024 年 1 月 6 日。在对 4463 篇潜在论文(包括 23 篇全文论文)进行审查后,确定了 10 篇符合荟萃分析条件的论文,共涉及 2658 名患者。比较了不同热消融术在 12 个月随访期间的肿瘤体积变化。通过网络荟萃分析评估了肿瘤直径变化、并发症、复发、手术和住院时间:根据传统的频数法,射频消融术(RFA)、激光消融术(LA)和微波消融术(MWA)的肿瘤体积变化标准化平均差(SMD)的总体集合估计值分别为1.38(95%可信区间(CI),0.62-2.13)、1.94(95%CI,0.78-3.10)和1.38(95%CI,1.01-1.75)。根据贝叶斯网络荟萃分析,在对累积排名面积(SUCRA)进行排名时,RFA(SUCRA,76.6)、MWA(SUCRA,66.6)和LA(SUCRA,39.8)被确定为与传统手术(CS)相比并发症风险降低幅度最大的三种干预措施,其中RFA(SUCRA,76.6)的安全性排名最高。与 CS 相比,MWA(SMD 4.43 [95%CI,2.68-6.17])、RFA(SMD 4.24 [95%CI,1.66-6.82])和 LA(SMD 4.24 [95%CI,1.48-7.00])的手术时间更短。与 CS 相比,LA SMD 4.61 [95 % CI, 1.79-7.44] 和 MWA SMD 3.07 [95 % CI, 1.32-4.83]与住院时间更短相关,其中 LA(SUCRA,86.5)排名最高。与CS相比,MWA降低了肿瘤复发风险RR 0.02 [95 % CI, -0.44-0.49]:我们对已发表的关于不同热消融技术和传统手术治疗甲状腺乳头状微癌的有效性和安全性的文献进行了全面回顾。由于缺乏长期数据和高质量的随机对照试验(RCT),研究方面仍然存在重要的空白。
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
American Journal of Otolaryngology
American Journal of Otolaryngology 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
378
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: Be fully informed about developments in otology, neurotology, audiology, rhinology, allergy, laryngology, speech science, bronchoesophagology, facial plastic surgery, and head and neck surgery. Featured sections include original contributions, grand rounds, current reviews, case reports and socioeconomics.
×
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