ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2017
Clinical assessment of computed tomography guided radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of inoperable patients with pulmonary tumors.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of risk factors for pneumothorax after particle implantation in the treatment of advanced lung cancer after surgery and establishment of a nomogram prediction model.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 4: systematic review of evidence involving SBRT and ablation.Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Review
- Ablation Therapy Combined with EGFR TKIs in the Treatment of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021Article
- Clinical assessment of magnetic resonance imaging-guided radiofrequency ablation for breast cancer.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo enhance our understanding of the feasibility, effectiveness, safety and quality of life (QoL) of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for inoperable patients with pulmonary tumors.
methodsThe data of 88 patients with pulmonary tumors undergoing RFA were collected. Proof of malignancy was obtained by biopsy in all patients. Diagnoses included non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in 74 patients and pulmonary metastases in 14 patients. Patients underwent computed tomography (CT)-guided RFA according to standard protocol and had a 2-year follow-up. Results assessment included feasibility (correct placement of the ablation probe into all targeted tumors), effectiveness (overall survival rate and local control rate), safety (treatment-related complication and changes in pulmonary function) and QoL.
resultsOne hundred and thirty-four RFAs were successfully conducted in 88 patients with 96 nodules. Correct placement of ablation probe into targeted tumors with completion of the planned treatment protocol was feasible in all 88 (100%) patients and no procedure-related deaths occurred. Major complication rate was 4.5% (4/88), which consisted of symptomatic pneumothorax (2/88) and high fever (2/88). No significant worsening of pulmonary function was observed. Tumors shrank obviously at 6 months after RFA with a statistically significance (P<0.001).The overall survival rate in 6 months, 1 year and 2 years were 100%, 95.5% and 70.5%, respectively while the local control rate in 6 months, 1 year and 2 years were 92.1%, 87.5% and 51.1% respectively. There was no significant difference of overall survival rate and local control rate between NSCLC and metastatic carcinoma. No significant worsening of QoL was observed.
conclusionsCT-guided RFA is a feasible, effective and safe therapy for inoperable patients with pulmonary tumors. However, RFA could not obviously improve the QoL in the patients with pulmonary tumors. More prospective studies comparing RFA with standard non-surgical treatment options were needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.