微波消融与射频消融治疗肝细胞癌:倾向评分匹配和逆概率加权分析。

Wenlong Yang, Xiaoyan Li, Xufang Tan
{"title":"微波消融与射频消融治疗肝细胞癌:倾向评分匹配和逆概率加权分析。","authors":"Wenlong Yang, Xiaoyan Li, Xufang Tan","doi":"10.1080/02656736.2025.2524389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) have been proven to be safe and effective methods for treating early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although researchers have compared the efficacy of MWA and RFA, the results have not been consistent. Therefore, this study utilizes a large sample size and employs propensity score matching (PSM) combined with inverse probability weighting (IPW) to further investigate the effects between the two treatments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with early-stage HCC who were diagnosed and treated with MWA or RFA between 2015 and 2022 were collected. The post-treatment effects and tumor outcomes were analyzed using PSM and IPW.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 1-, 2- and 3-year recurrence rates were 40.89%, 68.07% and 84.13% for MWA, and 39.13%, 62.64% and 75.71% for RFA. The overall survival rates at 1, 2 and 3 years were 70.47%, 40.98% and 21.90% for MWA, and 70.53%, 44.85% and 30.60% for RFA. Cox regression indicated that age, tumor number and post-treatment were adverse prognostic factors for recurrence-free survival, while treatment method, age, tumor number and post-treatment were adverse prognostic factors for overall survival.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The 5-year overall survival rates for RFA and MWA remained similar. The discrepancies in the 5-year cumulative recurrence-free rate might be attributed to the small MWA cohort, possible differences in patient selection, the margin assessment procedure used and the overall short follow-up period.</p>","PeriodicalId":520653,"journal":{"name":"International journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group","volume":"42 1","pages":"2524389"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Microwave ablation versus radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Wenlong Yang, Xiaoyan Li, Xufang Tan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02656736.2025.2524389\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) have been proven to be safe and effective methods for treating early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although researchers have compared the efficacy of MWA and RFA, the results have not been consistent. Therefore, this study utilizes a large sample size and employs propensity score matching (PSM) combined with inverse probability weighting (IPW) to further investigate the effects between the two treatments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with early-stage HCC who were diagnosed and treated with MWA or RFA between 2015 and 2022 were collected. The post-treatment effects and tumor outcomes were analyzed using PSM and IPW.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 1-, 2- and 3-year recurrence rates were 40.89%, 68.07% and 84.13% for MWA, and 39.13%, 62.64% and 75.71% for RFA. The overall survival rates at 1, 2 and 3 years were 70.47%, 40.98% and 21.90% for MWA, and 70.53%, 44.85% and 30.60% for RFA. Cox regression indicated that age, tumor number and post-treatment were adverse prognostic factors for recurrence-free survival, while treatment method, age, tumor number and post-treatment were adverse prognostic factors for overall survival.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The 5-year overall survival rates for RFA and MWA remained similar. The discrepancies in the 5-year cumulative recurrence-free rate might be attributed to the small MWA cohort, possible differences in patient selection, the margin assessment procedure used and the overall short follow-up period.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520653,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"2524389\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2025.2524389\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2025.2524389","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:射频消融(RFA)和微波消融(MWA)已被证明是治疗早期肝细胞癌(HCC)安全有效的方法。尽管研究人员比较了MWA和RFA的疗效,但结果并不一致。因此,本研究采用大样本量,采用倾向得分匹配(PSM)结合逆概率加权(IPW)来进一步研究两种处理之间的效果。方法:收集2015 - 2022年间诊断并接受MWA或RFA治疗的早期HCC患者。采用PSM和IPW分析治疗后疗效和肿瘤转归。结果:MWA的1、2、3年复发率分别为40.89%、68.07%、84.13%;RFA的1、2、3年复发率分别为39.13%、62.64%、75.71%。MWA组1、2、3年总生存率分别为70.47%、40.98%、21.90%,RFA组70.53%、44.85%、30.60%。Cox回归分析显示,年龄、肿瘤数量和治疗后是影响无复发生存期的不良预后因素,而治疗方式、年龄、肿瘤数量和治疗后是影响总生存期的不良预后因素。结论:RFA与MWA的5年总生存率相近。5年累积无复发率的差异可能归因于较小的MWA队列,患者选择的可能差异,所使用的边缘评估程序以及总体较短的随访时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Microwave ablation versus radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting analysis.

Background: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) have been proven to be safe and effective methods for treating early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although researchers have compared the efficacy of MWA and RFA, the results have not been consistent. Therefore, this study utilizes a large sample size and employs propensity score matching (PSM) combined with inverse probability weighting (IPW) to further investigate the effects between the two treatments.

Methods: Patients with early-stage HCC who were diagnosed and treated with MWA or RFA between 2015 and 2022 were collected. The post-treatment effects and tumor outcomes were analyzed using PSM and IPW.

Results: The 1-, 2- and 3-year recurrence rates were 40.89%, 68.07% and 84.13% for MWA, and 39.13%, 62.64% and 75.71% for RFA. The overall survival rates at 1, 2 and 3 years were 70.47%, 40.98% and 21.90% for MWA, and 70.53%, 44.85% and 30.60% for RFA. Cox regression indicated that age, tumor number and post-treatment were adverse prognostic factors for recurrence-free survival, while treatment method, age, tumor number and post-treatment were adverse prognostic factors for overall survival.

Conclusion: The 5-year overall survival rates for RFA and MWA remained similar. The discrepancies in the 5-year cumulative recurrence-free rate might be attributed to the small MWA cohort, possible differences in patient selection, the margin assessment procedure used and the overall short follow-up period.

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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信