Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31182102›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2019

Microwave ablation compared with hepatic resection for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma and liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mrudula B Glassberg, Sudip Ghosh, Jeffrey W Clymer, George W J Wright, Nicole Ferko, Joseph F Amaral

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Clinical effect of hepatic artery interventional embolization and chemotherapy and its influence on P16 protein expression in patients with liver cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Immune checkpoint inhibition: a future guided by radiology.The British journal of radiology · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Computational Modeling of Microwave Tumor Ablation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mrudula B GlassbergEthicon Inc., US-22, Somerville, NJ, 08876, USA.
Sudip GhoshEthicon Inc., 4545 Creek Rd, Cincinnati, OH, 45242, USA.
Jeffrey W ClymerEthicon Inc., 4545 Creek Rd, Cincinnati, OH, 45242, USA.
George W J WrightCornerstone Research Group Inc., 204-3228 South Service Road, Burlington, ON, L7N 3H8, Canada. gwright@cornerstone-research.com.
Nicole FerkoCornerstone Research Group Inc., 204-3228 South Service Road, Burlington, ON, L7N 3H8, Canada.
Joseph F AmaralEthicon Inc., 4545 Creek Rd, Cincinnati, OH, 45242, USA.
Cornerstone University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHepatic resection (HR) is the gold standard liver cancer treatment, but few patients are eligible due to comorbidities or tumor location. Microwave ablation (MWA) is an important complementary liver cancer treatment to HR. This systematic review compared MWA with HR for liver cancer treatment.

methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was conducted for randomized and observational studies published from 2006 onwards. The primary outcome was local tumor recurrence (LTR), and a random effects model was used for meta-analyses.

resultsOf the 1845 studies identified, 1 randomized and 15 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. LTR was significantly increased with MWA versus HR (risk ratio (RR) = 2.49; P = 0.016). In secondary measures, HR provided significantly higher 3- and 5-year overall survival (RR = 0.94; P = 0.03 and RR = 0.88; P = 0.01, respectively) and 3-year disease-free survival (RR = 0.78; P = 0.009). MWA exhibited significantly shorter length of stay (weighted mean difference (WMD) = - 6.16 days; P < 0.001) and operative time (WMD = - 58.69 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = - 189.09 mL; P = 0.006), and fewer complications than HR (RR = 0.31; P < 0.001). When MWA was combined with HR and compared with either modality alone, complications and blood loss were significantly lower with the combination treatment; however, there were no differences in other outcomes. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were generally aligned with the main results.

conclusionsMWA can be an effective and safe alternative to HR in patients/tumors that are not amenable to resection. More randomized and economic studies should be performed that compare the two treatments, especially to determine the target population that benefits most from MWA.

Indexed as

MicrowavesCarcinoma, HepatocellularCatheter AblationHepatectomyHumansLiver NeoplasmsSurvival RateTreatment OutcomeHepatic resectionHepatocellular carcinomaMeta-analysisMicrowave ablation

Identifiers

PMID31182102
PMCPMC6558848
OpenAlexW2951807493

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.