The efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation in papillary thyroid carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.5 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Wei Shuen Clarissa Cheong, Xin Yi Joy Au, Ming Yann Lim, Ernest Weizhong Fu, Hao Li, Uei Pua, Yong Quan Alvin Soon, Yijin Jereme Gan
{"title":"The efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation in papillary thyroid carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Wei Shuen Clarissa Cheong, Xin Yi Joy Au, Ming Yann Lim, Ernest Weizhong Fu, Hao Li, Uei Pua, Yong Quan Alvin Soon, Yijin Jereme Gan","doi":"10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2024241","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) avoids the complications of general anaesthesia, reduces length of hospitalisation and reduces morbidity from surgery. As such, it is a strong alternative treatment for patients with comorbidities who are not surgical candidates. However, to our knowledge, there have only been 1 systematic review and 3 combined systematic review and meta-analyses on this topic to date. This systematic review and meta-analysis seeks to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RFA in the treatment of papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) with longer follow-up durations.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant studies published from 1990 to 2021; 13 studies with a total of 1366 patients were included. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and Sandelowski et al.'s approach1 to \"negotiated consensual validation\" were used to achieve consensus on the final list of articles to be included. All authors then assessed each study using a rating scheme modified from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pooled volume reduction rates (VRRs) from 1 to 48 months after RFA, complete disappearance rates (CDR) and complications were assessed. Pooled mean VRRs were 96.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] 91.05-102.13, I2=0%) at 12 months2-6 and 99.31 (95% CI 93.74-104.88, I2=not applicable) at 48 months.2,5 Five studies showed an eventual CDR of 100%.2,4,7-9 No life-threatening complications were recorded. The most common complications included pain, transient voice hoarseness, fever and less commonly, first-degree burn.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RFA may be an effective and safe alternative to treating PTC. Larger clinical trials with longer follow-up are needed to further evaluate the effectiveness of RFA in treating PTC.</p>","PeriodicalId":502093,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore","volume":"54 3","pages":"170-177"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2024241","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) avoids the complications of general anaesthesia, reduces length of hospitalisation and reduces morbidity from surgery. As such, it is a strong alternative treatment for patients with comorbidities who are not surgical candidates. However, to our knowledge, there have only been 1 systematic review and 3 combined systematic review and meta-analyses on this topic to date. This systematic review and meta-analysis seeks to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RFA in the treatment of papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) with longer follow-up durations.

Method: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant studies published from 1990 to 2021; 13 studies with a total of 1366 patients were included. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and Sandelowski et al.'s approach1 to "negotiated consensual validation" were used to achieve consensus on the final list of articles to be included. All authors then assessed each study using a rating scheme modified from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

Results: Pooled volume reduction rates (VRRs) from 1 to 48 months after RFA, complete disappearance rates (CDR) and complications were assessed. Pooled mean VRRs were 96.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] 91.05-102.13, I2=0%) at 12 months2-6 and 99.31 (95% CI 93.74-104.88, I2=not applicable) at 48 months.2,5 Five studies showed an eventual CDR of 100%.2,4,7-9 No life-threatening complications were recorded. The most common complications included pain, transient voice hoarseness, fever and less commonly, first-degree burn.

Conclusion: RFA may be an effective and safe alternative to treating PTC. Larger clinical trials with longer follow-up are needed to further evaluate the effectiveness of RFA in treating PTC.

射频消融治疗甲状腺乳头状癌的疗效和安全性:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
简介:射频消融(RFA)避免了全身麻醉的并发症,缩短了住院时间,减少了手术的发病率。因此,它是一个强有力的替代治疗的合并症患者谁不是手术候选人。然而,据我们所知,迄今为止只有1篇系统综述和3篇综合系统综述和荟萃分析。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估RFA治疗随访时间较长的甲状腺乳头状癌(PTC)的疗效和安全性。方法:检索PubMed、Embase和Cochrane数据库1990 - 2021年发表的相关研究;13项研究共纳入1366例患者。系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目和Sandelowski等人的“协商一致验证”方法1被用于对纳入的最终文章列表达成共识。然后,所有作者使用牛津循证医学中心修改的评分方案对每项研究进行评估。结果:评估RFA术后1 ~ 48个月的总体积缩小率(VRRs)、完全消失率(CDR)和并发症。12个月至6个月时的合并平均vrr为96.59(95%可信区间[CI] 91.05-102.13, I2=0%), 48个月时的合并平均vrr为99.31 (95% CI 93.74-104.88, I2=不适用)。2,5 5项研究显示最终的CDR为100%。2,4,7-9无危及生命的并发症记录。最常见的并发症包括疼痛、一过性声音嘶哑、发烧和较少见的一级烧伤。结论:射频消融术是一种安全有效的治疗PTC的方法。需要更大的临床试验和更长的随访时间来进一步评估RFA治疗PTC的有效性。
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