ArticleActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2020
Percutaneous lung microwave ablation versus lung resection in high-risk patients. A monocentric experience.
Article in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emergency thoracoscopic management of early ablation-tract bronchopleural fistula after low-power lung microwave ablation: a case report.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluating the early therapeutic response of radiofrequency ablation in rabbit VX2 lung tumors: a comparison of four diffusion weighted imaging models.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
- Outcomes following microwave ablation of 669 primary and metastatic lung malignancies.European radiology · 2026Article
- Treatment Outcomes for Malignant Peripheral Lung Tumours: A Prospective Single-Centre Comparison of Thermal Ablation, Surgery, and Radiotherapy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Image-Guided Percutaneous and Transarterial Therapies for Primary and Metastatic Lung Cancer.Technology in cancer research & treatmentReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and aim of workLung microwave ablation (MWA) is considered an alternative treatment in high-risk patients, not suitable for surgery. The aim of our study is to compare MWA and pulmonary lobectomy in high-risk, lung cancer patients.
methodsThis was a single-center, propensity score--weighted cohort study. All adult patients who underwent CT guided MWA for stage I NSCLC between June 2009-October 2014 were included in the study and were compared with a cohort of patients submitted to lung lobectomy in the same period of time. Outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).
results32 patients underwent MWA, and 35 high-risk patients submitted to lung lobectomy in the same period were selected. Median follow-up time was 51.1 months (95% CI: 43.8-62.3). Overall survival was 43.8 (95% CI: 26.1-55) and 55.8 months (95% CI: 49.9-76.8) in the MWA group and Lobectomy group, respectively. Negative prognostic factors were MWA procedure (HR:2.25, 95% CI: 1.20-4.21, p= 0.0109) and nodule diameter (HR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.07; p= 0.007) for OS, while MWA procedure (HR: 5.2; 95% CI: 2.1-12.8: p < 0.001), ECOG 3 (HR: 5.0; 95% CI: 1.6-15.6; p = 0.006) and nodule diameter (HR: 1.1; 95% CI: 1.0-1.1; p = 0.003) for DFS.
conclusionsOur study demonstrated a high percentage of local relapse in the MWA group but a comparable overall survival. Although lung lobectomy remains the gold standard treatment for stage I NSCLC, we can consider the MWA procedure as valid alternative local treatment in high-risk patients for stage I NSCLC.
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.