电与热的争论,不可逆电穿孔和射频消融治疗肝癌的有效性和安全性:一项荟萃分析。

IF 1.7 4区 生物学 Q3 BIOLOGY
Open Life Sciences Pub Date : 2024-12-18 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1515/biol-2022-0991
Rong Xing, Yutong Liu, Yang Liu, Haihong Jiang, Chao Liu, Jiru Du
{"title":"电与热的争论,不可逆电穿孔和射频消融治疗肝癌的有效性和安全性:一项荟萃分析。","authors":"Rong Xing, Yutong Liu, Yang Liu, Haihong Jiang, Chao Liu, Jiru Du","doi":"10.1515/biol-2022-0991","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Both irreversible electroporation (IRE) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are viable ablation methods for localized treatment of liver tumors. We conducted a meta-analysis to access the efficacy and safety of IRE and RFA in liver cancer treatment. Clinical studies on IRE and RFA for the treatment of liver cancer were collected from PubMed and CNKI until June 2023. We screened the literature for ablation success rates at 1 month post-operation, extracting keywords such as \"ablation success rate,\" \"technical success rate,\" \"recurrence rate,\" and \"complication\" for meta-analysis. A total of 37 articles were included: 24 related to RFA involving 1,685 cases and 13 related to IRE involving 524 cases. The results demonstrate that ablation success rates at post-operative 1 month for IRE and RFA were 86% (95% CI: 82-89%) and 87% (95% CI: 81-92%), respectively. Technical success rates were 96% (95% CI: 88-100%) and 99% (95% CI: 96-100%). In addition, the recurrence rate was 16% (95% CI: 12-22%) in RFA group and 16% (95% CI: 9-23%) in IRE group. In terms of safety, the RFA had a complication rate of 28% (95% CI: 10-50%) and the IRE had a rate of 26% (95% CI: 13-43%). In conclusion, IRE and RFA exhibit similar ablation success rates at 1 month post-operation and comparable complication rates, making them both safe and effective treatment options.</p>","PeriodicalId":19605,"journal":{"name":"Open Life Sciences","volume":"19 1","pages":"20220991"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11662973/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The debate between electricity and heat, efficacy and safety of irreversible electroporation and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of liver cancer: A meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Rong Xing, Yutong Liu, Yang Liu, Haihong Jiang, Chao Liu, Jiru Du\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/biol-2022-0991\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Both irreversible electroporation (IRE) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are viable ablation methods for localized treatment of liver tumors. We conducted a meta-analysis to access the efficacy and safety of IRE and RFA in liver cancer treatment. Clinical studies on IRE and RFA for the treatment of liver cancer were collected from PubMed and CNKI until June 2023. We screened the literature for ablation success rates at 1 month post-operation, extracting keywords such as \\\"ablation success rate,\\\" \\\"technical success rate,\\\" \\\"recurrence rate,\\\" and \\\"complication\\\" for meta-analysis. A total of 37 articles were included: 24 related to RFA involving 1,685 cases and 13 related to IRE involving 524 cases. The results demonstrate that ablation success rates at post-operative 1 month for IRE and RFA were 86% (95% CI: 82-89%) and 87% (95% CI: 81-92%), respectively. Technical success rates were 96% (95% CI: 88-100%) and 99% (95% CI: 96-100%). In addition, the recurrence rate was 16% (95% CI: 12-22%) in RFA group and 16% (95% CI: 9-23%) in IRE group. In terms of safety, the RFA had a complication rate of 28% (95% CI: 10-50%) and the IRE had a rate of 26% (95% CI: 13-43%). In conclusion, IRE and RFA exhibit similar ablation success rates at 1 month post-operation and comparable complication rates, making them both safe and effective treatment options.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19605,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Life Sciences\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"20220991\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11662973/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Life Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/biol-2022-0991\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/biol-2022-0991","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

不可逆电穿孔(IRE)和射频消融术(RFA)都是肝脏肿瘤局部治疗可行的消融术。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,以获得IRE和RFA治疗肝癌的有效性和安全性。IRE和RFA治疗肝癌的临床研究收集自PubMed和CNKI,截止到2023年6月。我们筛选了术后1个月消融成功率的文献,提取了“消融成功率”、“技术成功率”、“复发率”和“并发症”等关键词进行meta分析。共纳入37篇文章:24篇与RFA有关,涉及1,685例;13篇与IRE有关,涉及524例。结果显示,IRE和RFA术后1个月的消融成功率分别为86% (95% CI: 82-89%)和87% (95% CI: 81-92%)。技术成功率分别为96% (95% CI: 88-100%)和99% (95% CI: 96-100%)。RFA组复发率为16% (95% CI: 12-22%), IRE组复发率为16% (95% CI: 9-23%)。安全性方面,RFA的并发症发生率为28% (95% CI: 10-50%), IRE的并发症发生率为26% (95% CI: 13-43%)。总之,IRE和RFA在术后1个月表现出相似的消融成功率和相似的并发症发生率,使它们成为安全有效的治疗选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The debate between electricity and heat, efficacy and safety of irreversible electroporation and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of liver cancer: A meta-analysis.

Both irreversible electroporation (IRE) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are viable ablation methods for localized treatment of liver tumors. We conducted a meta-analysis to access the efficacy and safety of IRE and RFA in liver cancer treatment. Clinical studies on IRE and RFA for the treatment of liver cancer were collected from PubMed and CNKI until June 2023. We screened the literature for ablation success rates at 1 month post-operation, extracting keywords such as "ablation success rate," "technical success rate," "recurrence rate," and "complication" for meta-analysis. A total of 37 articles were included: 24 related to RFA involving 1,685 cases and 13 related to IRE involving 524 cases. The results demonstrate that ablation success rates at post-operative 1 month for IRE and RFA were 86% (95% CI: 82-89%) and 87% (95% CI: 81-92%), respectively. Technical success rates were 96% (95% CI: 88-100%) and 99% (95% CI: 96-100%). In addition, the recurrence rate was 16% (95% CI: 12-22%) in RFA group and 16% (95% CI: 9-23%) in IRE group. In terms of safety, the RFA had a complication rate of 28% (95% CI: 10-50%) and the IRE had a rate of 26% (95% CI: 13-43%). In conclusion, IRE and RFA exhibit similar ablation success rates at 1 month post-operation and comparable complication rates, making them both safe and effective treatment options.

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
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
131
审稿时长
43 weeks
期刊介绍: Open Life Sciences (previously Central European Journal of Biology) is a fast growing peer-reviewed journal, devoted to scholarly research in all areas of life sciences, such as molecular biology, plant science, biotechnology, cell biology, biochemistry, biophysics, microbiology and virology, ecology, differentiation and development, genetics and many others. Open Life Sciences assures top quality of published data through critical peer review and editorial involvement throughout the whole publication process. Thanks to the Open Access model of publishing, it also offers unrestricted access to published articles for all users.
×
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