Efficacy and safety of B-ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of primary liver cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Xiong Zhang, Hong-Yi Zhu, Ming Yuan
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of B-ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of primary liver cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Xiong Zhang, Hong-Yi Zhu, Ming Yuan","doi":"10.4240/wjgs.v16.i9.2986","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Primary liver cancer is one of the most lethal malignancies in the world. Traditional treatment methods have limitations in terms of efficacy and safety. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) guided by B-ultrasound, as a minimally invasive treatment, has attracted increasing attention in the treatment of primary liver cancer in recent years.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To study the efficacy and safety of RFA were compared with those of traditional surgery (TS) for treating small liver cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>At least 2 people were required to search domestic and foreign public databases, including foreign databases such as EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane Library, and Chinese databases such as the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, China Biomedical Literature database, Wanfang database and VIP database. Controlled trials of RFA <i>vs</i> conventional surgery for small liver cancer were retrieved from January 2008 to January 2023. They were screened and evaluated according to the quality evaluation criteria in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 10 studies were included in this study, including 1503 patients in the RFA group and 1657 patients in the surgery group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in 1-year overall survival between the two groups (<i>P</i> > 0.05), while the 3-year and 5-year overall survival rates and 1-year, 3-year and 5-year tumor-free survival rates in the surgery group were greater than those in the RFA group (<i>P</i> < 0.05). In terms of complications, the incidence of complications in the RFA group was lower than that in the surgery group (<i>P</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In terms of long-term survival, TS is better than RFA for small liver cancer patients. However, RFA has fewer complications and is safer.</p>","PeriodicalId":23759,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11438792/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v16.i9.2986","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Primary liver cancer is one of the most lethal malignancies in the world. Traditional treatment methods have limitations in terms of efficacy and safety. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) guided by B-ultrasound, as a minimally invasive treatment, has attracted increasing attention in the treatment of primary liver cancer in recent years.

Aim: To study the efficacy and safety of RFA were compared with those of traditional surgery (TS) for treating small liver cancer.

Methods: At least 2 people were required to search domestic and foreign public databases, including foreign databases such as EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane Library, and Chinese databases such as the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, China Biomedical Literature database, Wanfang database and VIP database. Controlled trials of RFA vs conventional surgery for small liver cancer were retrieved from January 2008 to January 2023. They were screened and evaluated according to the quality evaluation criteria in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

Results: A total of 10 studies were included in this study, including 1503 patients in the RFA group and 1657 patients in the surgery group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in 1-year overall survival between the two groups (P > 0.05), while the 3-year and 5-year overall survival rates and 1-year, 3-year and 5-year tumor-free survival rates in the surgery group were greater than those in the RFA group (P < 0.05). In terms of complications, the incidence of complications in the RFA group was lower than that in the surgery group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: In terms of long-term survival, TS is better than RFA for small liver cancer patients. However, RFA has fewer complications and is safer.

B超引导下射频消融治疗原发性肝癌的有效性和安全性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:原发性肝癌是世界上最致命的恶性肿瘤之一:原发性肝癌是世界上最致命的恶性肿瘤之一。传统的治疗方法在疗效和安全性方面存在局限性。目的:比较射频消融术(RFA)与传统手术(TS)治疗小肝癌的疗效和安全性:方法:至少2人检索国内外公共数据库,包括EMBASE、PubMed、Cochrane Library等国外数据库和中国知网数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方数据库、VIP数据库等国内数据库。检索了2008年1月至2023年1月期间关于RFA与传统手术治疗小肝癌的对照试验。根据《Cochrane系统综述手册》中的质量评估标准对这些试验进行了筛选和评估。荟萃分析使用RevMan 5.3软件进行:本研究共纳入了 10 项研究,包括 RFA 组 1503 例患者和手术组 1657 例患者。荟萃分析结果显示,两组患者的1年总生存率无显著差异(P>0.05),而手术组的3年和5年总生存率以及1年、3年和5年无瘤生存率均高于RFA组(P<0.05)。在并发症方面,RFA 组的并发症发生率低于手术组(P < 0.05):结论:就小肝癌患者的长期生存率而言,TS优于RFA。结论:就长期生存率而言,小肝癌患者的 TS 疗效优于 RFA,但 RFA 的并发症更少、更安全。
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
5.00%
发文量
111
×
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