结直肠肝转移的消融技术:系统回顾,实践的描述性总结,以及对最佳数据报告的建议。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Ejso Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ejso.2024.109487
Wee Han Ng , Catarina Machado , Alice Rooney , Robert Jones , Jonathan Rees , Samir Pathak
{"title":"结直肠肝转移的消融技术:系统回顾,实践的描述性总结,以及对最佳数据报告的建议。","authors":"Wee Han Ng ,&nbsp;Catarina Machado ,&nbsp;Alice Rooney ,&nbsp;Robert Jones ,&nbsp;Jonathan Rees ,&nbsp;Samir Pathak","doi":"10.1016/j.ejso.2024.109487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) and Microwave Ablation (MWA) are alternative treatments for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) patients that are unsuitable for resection. However, consensus is lacking regarding selection criteria, tumour characteristics, ablation technique delivery, and device settings. This study aims to summarise current evidence to inform future prospective studies.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Studies assessing RFA and MWA treatment of CRLM were identified in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, from inception until 31<sup>st</sup> August 2024.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Fifty-two studies were included (retrospective cohort n = 45, prospective cohort n = 5, non-randomized comparative studies n = 2). Fifty-four inclusion criteria were used across 45 studies and were not stated in 7 studies. Tumours varied in mean number [1-8] and diameter (1.54–4.35 cm). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy use (10–100 % of patients), ablation delivery approach (open n = 4, laparoscopic n = 11, percutaneous n = 26, mixed n = 5), anaesthetic mode (GA n = 18, LA n = 11, mixed n = 2) and delivering clinician (radiologist n = 11, surgeon n = 16, both n = 1) all varied. Thirty-two studies lacked complete ablation device settings. Six studies followed a standardized ablation algorithm and 14 studies had specific settings. Five-year survival ranged from 0 to 69.7 % for ablation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>There is significant heterogeneity in the reporting of study design, patient selection, and ablation techniques for CRLM. The lack of standardized approaches and inconsistent reporting of methodology and outcomes make it challenging to determine the optimal ablative treatment for CRLM. We recommend that future research should focus on clearly defining selection and treatment criteria, as well as treatment delivery.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11522,"journal":{"name":"Ejso","volume":"51 2","pages":"Article 109487"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ablative techniques in colorectal liver metastases: A systematic review, descriptive summary of practice, and recommendations for optimal data reporting\",\"authors\":\"Wee Han Ng ,&nbsp;Catarina Machado ,&nbsp;Alice Rooney ,&nbsp;Robert Jones ,&nbsp;Jonathan Rees ,&nbsp;Samir Pathak\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejso.2024.109487\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) and Microwave Ablation (MWA) are alternative treatments for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) patients that are unsuitable for resection. However, consensus is lacking regarding selection criteria, tumour characteristics, ablation technique delivery, and device settings. This study aims to summarise current evidence to inform future prospective studies.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Studies assessing RFA and MWA treatment of CRLM were identified in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, from inception until 31<sup>st</sup> August 2024.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Fifty-two studies were included (retrospective cohort n = 45, prospective cohort n = 5, non-randomized comparative studies n = 2). Fifty-four inclusion criteria were used across 45 studies and were not stated in 7 studies. Tumours varied in mean number [1-8] and diameter (1.54–4.35 cm). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy use (10–100 % of patients), ablation delivery approach (open n = 4, laparoscopic n = 11, percutaneous n = 26, mixed n = 5), anaesthetic mode (GA n = 18, LA n = 11, mixed n = 2) and delivering clinician (radiologist n = 11, surgeon n = 16, both n = 1) all varied. Thirty-two studies lacked complete ablation device settings. Six studies followed a standardized ablation algorithm and 14 studies had specific settings. Five-year survival ranged from 0 to 69.7 % for ablation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>There is significant heterogeneity in the reporting of study design, patient selection, and ablation techniques for CRLM. The lack of standardized approaches and inconsistent reporting of methodology and outcomes make it challenging to determine the optimal ablative treatment for CRLM. We recommend that future research should focus on clearly defining selection and treatment criteria, as well as treatment delivery.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ejso\",\"volume\":\"51 2\",\"pages\":\"Article 109487\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ejso\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0748798324015555\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ejso","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0748798324015555","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:射频消融(RFA)和微波消融(MWA)是不适合切除的结直肠癌肝转移(CRLM)患者的替代治疗方法。然而,在选择标准、肿瘤特征、消融技术输送和设备设置方面缺乏共识。本研究旨在总结现有证据,为未来的前瞻性研究提供信息。方法:按照PRISMA指南进行系统评价。评估RFA和MWA治疗CRLM的研究在Medline, Embase, Web of Science和Cochrane系统评价数据库中进行了鉴定,从开始到2024年8月31日。结果:纳入了52项研究(回顾性队列n = 45,前瞻性队列n = 5,非随机比较研究n = 2)。45项研究使用了54项纳入标准,7项研究未说明。肿瘤的平均数目[1-8]和直径(1.54-4.35 cm)不同。新辅助化疗使用(10- 100%)、消融给药方式(开放4例、腹腔镜11例、经皮26例、混合5例)、麻醉方式(GA 18例、LA 11例、混合2例)和给药临床医生(放射科医生11例、外科医生16例,均为1例)各不相同。32项研究缺乏完整的消融装置设置。6项研究遵循标准化消融算法,14项研究具有特定设置。消融术的5年生存率为0 ~ 69.7%。结论:CRLM的研究设计、患者选择和消融技术报道存在显著的异质性。缺乏标准化的方法和不一致的方法和结果报告使得确定CRLM的最佳消融治疗具有挑战性。我们建议未来的研究应侧重于明确界定选择和治疗标准,以及治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ablative techniques in colorectal liver metastases: A systematic review, descriptive summary of practice, and recommendations for optimal data reporting

Background

Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) and Microwave Ablation (MWA) are alternative treatments for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) patients that are unsuitable for resection. However, consensus is lacking regarding selection criteria, tumour characteristics, ablation technique delivery, and device settings. This study aims to summarise current evidence to inform future prospective studies.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Studies assessing RFA and MWA treatment of CRLM were identified in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, from inception until 31st August 2024.

Results

Fifty-two studies were included (retrospective cohort n = 45, prospective cohort n = 5, non-randomized comparative studies n = 2). Fifty-four inclusion criteria were used across 45 studies and were not stated in 7 studies. Tumours varied in mean number [1-8] and diameter (1.54–4.35 cm). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy use (10–100 % of patients), ablation delivery approach (open n = 4, laparoscopic n = 11, percutaneous n = 26, mixed n = 5), anaesthetic mode (GA n = 18, LA n = 11, mixed n = 2) and delivering clinician (radiologist n = 11, surgeon n = 16, both n = 1) all varied. Thirty-two studies lacked complete ablation device settings. Six studies followed a standardized ablation algorithm and 14 studies had specific settings. Five-year survival ranged from 0 to 69.7 % for ablation.

Conclusions

There is significant heterogeneity in the reporting of study design, patient selection, and ablation techniques for CRLM. The lack of standardized approaches and inconsistent reporting of methodology and outcomes make it challenging to determine the optimal ablative treatment for CRLM. We recommend that future research should focus on clearly defining selection and treatment criteria, as well as treatment delivery.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ejso
Ejso 医学-外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1148
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: JSO - European Journal of Surgical Oncology ("the Journal of Cancer Surgery") is the Official Journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and BASO ~ the Association for Cancer Surgery. The EJSO aims to advance surgical oncology research and practice through the publication of original research articles, review articles, editorials, debates and correspondence.
×
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