Radiofrequency ablation versus resection for colorectal cancer liver metastases: a meta-analysis

No randomized controlled trial (RCT) has yet been performed to provide the evidence to clarify the therapeutic debate on liver resection (LR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in treating colorectal liver metastases (CLM). The meta-analysis was performed to summarize the evidence mostly from retrosp...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:PloS one 2012-09, Vol.7 (9), p.e45493-e45493
Main Authors: Weng, Mingzhe, Zhang, Yong, Zhou, Di, Yang, Yong, Tang, Zhaohui, Zhao, Mingning, Quan, Zhiwei, Gong, Wei
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Ablation
Catheter Ablation - adverse effects
Clinical trials
Colorectal cancer
Colorectal carcinoma
Colorectal Neoplasms - mortality
Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology
Confidence intervals
Hepatectomy - adverse effects
Humans
Laparoscopy
Liver
Liver cancer
Liver Neoplasms - mortality
Liver Neoplasms - secondary
Liver Neoplasms - surgery
Medical research
Medicine
Meta-analysis
Metastases
Metastasis
Morbidity
Mortality
Publication Bias
Radio frequency
Radiofrequency ablation
Risk analysis
Studies
Subgroups
Surgery
Survival
Tumors
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:No randomized controlled trial (RCT) has yet been performed to provide the evidence to clarify the therapeutic debate on liver resection (LR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in treating colorectal liver metastases (CLM). The meta-analysis was performed to summarize the evidence mostly from retrospective clinical trials and to investigate the effect of LR and RFA. Systematic literature search of clinical studies was carried out to compare RFA and LR for CLM in Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library Central databases. The meta-analysis was performed using risk ratio (RR) and random effect model, in which 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for RR were calculated. Primary outcomes were the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 3 and 5 years plus mortality and morbidity. 1 prospective study and 12 retrospective studies were finally eligible for meta-analysis. LR was significantly superior to RFA in 3 -year OS (RR 1.377, 95% CI: 1.246-1.522); 5-year OS (RR: 1.474, 95%CI: 1.284-1.692); 3-year DFS (RR 1.735, 95% CI: 1.483-2.029) and 5-year DFS (RR 2.227, 95% CI: 1.823-2.720). The postoperative morbidity was higher in LR (RR: 2.495, 95% CI: 1.881-3.308), but no significant difference was found in mortality between LR and RFA. The data from the 3 subgroups (tumor
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0045493