Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31217342›Full record

ReviewThe oncologist2019

Radiofrequency Ablation and Microwave Ablation in Liver Tumors: An Update.

Francesco Izzo, Vincenza Granata, Roberto Grassi, Roberta Fusco, Raffaele Palaia, Paolo Delrio, Gianpaolo Carrafiello, Daniel Azoulay, Antonella Petrillo, Steven A Curley

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The oncologist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 310 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
310citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
29.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

310 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 546 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Microwave Ablation for Granulomatous Lobular Mastitis: A Narrative Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Review
  15. "What really works for us?" exploring therapeutic strategies for non-small cell lung cancer: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

250 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Francesco IzzoDivisions of Hepatobiliary Surgery, "Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy.
Vincenza GranataDivisions of Radiology, "Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy v.granata@istitutotumori.na.it.
Roberto GrassiDivision of Radiology, "Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Roberta FuscoDivisions of Radiology, "Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy.
Raffaele PalaiaDivisions of Hepatobiliary Surgery, "Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy.
Paolo DelrioDivisions of Abdominal Surgery, "Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy.
Gianpaolo CarrafielloDivision of Radiology, Department of Health Science, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Daniel AzoulayHepatobiliray Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Henri-Mondor Hospital, University Paris Est Creteil, Creteil, France.
Antonella PetrilloDivisions of Hepatobiliary Surgery, "Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy.
Steven A CurleySurgical Oncology, CHRISTUS Mother Frances Hospital, Tyler, Texas, USA.
Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale" · ITSecond Military Medical University · CNTrinity Mother Frances Hospitals and Clinics · USUniversité Paris-Est Créteil · FRUniversity of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" · ITUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article provides an overview of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) for treatment of primary liver tumors and hepatic metastasis. Only studies reporting RFA and MWA safety and efficacy on liver were retained. We found 40 clinical studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. RFA has become an established treatment modality because of its efficacy, reproducibility, low complication rates, and availability. MWA has several advantages over RFA, which may make it more attractive to treat hepatic tumors. According to the literature, the overall survival, local recurrence, complication rates, disease-free survival, and mortality in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with RFA vary between 53.2 ± 3.0 months and 66 months, between 59.8% and 63.1%, between 2% and 10.5%, between 22.0 ± 2.6 months and 39 months, and between 0% and 1.2%, respectively. According to the literature, overall survival, local recurrence, complication rates, disease-free survival, and mortality in patients with HCC treated with MWA (compared with RFA) vary between 22 months for focal lesion >3 cm (vs. 21 months) and 50 months for focal lesion ≤3 cm (vs. 27 months), between 5% (vs. 46.6%) and 17.8% (vs. 18.2%), between 2.2% (vs. 0%) and 61.5% (vs. 45.4%), between 14 months (vs. 10.5 months) and 22 months (vs. no data reported), and between 0% (vs. 0%) and 15% (vs. 36%), respectively. According to the literature, the overall survival, local recurrence, complication rates, and mortality in liver metastases patients treated with RFA (vs. MWA) are not statistically different for both the survival times from primary tumor diagnosis and survival times from ablation, between 10% (vs. 6%) and 35.7% (vs. 39.6), between 1.1% (vs. 3.1%) and 24% (vs. 27%), and between 0% (vs. 0%) and 2% (vs. 0.3%). MWA should be considered the technique of choice in selected patients, when the tumor is ≥3 cm in diameter or is close to large vessels, independent of its size. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Although technical features of the radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) are similar, the differences arise from the physical phenomenon used to generate heat. RFA has become an established treatment modality because of its efficacy, reproducibility, low complication rates, and availability. MWA has several advantages over RFA, which may make it more attractive than RFA to treat hepatic tumors. The benefits of MWA are an improved convection profile, higher constant intratumoral temperatures, faster ablation times, and the ability to use multiple probes to treat multiple lesions simultaneously. MWA should be considered the technique of choice when the tumor is ≥3 cm in diameter or is close to large vessels, independent of its size.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansLiver NeoplasmsMaleMicrowavesRadiofrequency AblationSurvival AnalysisEfficacyHepatocellular carcinomaLiver metastasisMicrowave ablationRadiofrequency ablation

Identifiers

PMID31217342
PMCPMC6795153
OpenAlexW2952163200

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.