Trial reportThoracic cancer2021
Co-ablation versus cryoablation for the treatment of stage III-IV non-small cell lung cancer: A prospective, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial (RCT).
Trial report in Thoracic cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07238894 (Peking University People's Hospital Breast Surgery Department), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 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.
Peking University People's Hospital Breast Surgery Department
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted targeted co-ablation combined with vertebroplasty under local anesthesia for spinal metastases.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Research status and trend of lung cancer ablation therapy: a bibliometric analysis from 2002 to 2025.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Co-Ablation System for Pain Management in Bone Metastases: Retrospective Exploratory Study.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- Awakening antitumour immunity in the multimorbid host: a hypothesis coupling cryoablation-induced immunogenic cell death with multi-target Traditional Chinese Medicine.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Expert consensus on perioperative management of patients with lung cancer treated with co-ablation system therapy.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2025Article
- Safety and efficacy of co-ablationJournal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Kangbo Knife Cryoablation for the Treatment of Functional Adrenal Tumors.Clinical medicine insights. Endocrinology and diabetes · 2025Article
- Review
- Review
- Age independent survival benefit for patients with small hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing percutaneous cryoablation: A propensity scores matching study.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Potential biomarkers for predicting immune response and outcomes in lung cancer patients undergoing thermal ablation.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Untargeted metabolomics profiling in a mouse model of lung cancer treated with thermal ablation.Bioengineered · 2022Article
- Cryoablation and immune synergistic effect for lung cancer: A review.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study compared a co-ablation (CA) system, which is a novel ablation device, with an argon-helium cryoablation (AHC) system. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of CA and AHC for the treatment of stage III-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
methodsWe conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) to determine whether CA was noninferior to AHC. The primary efficacy endpoints were the iceball coverage rate (ICR) and the disease control rate (DCR) one month after treatment. Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was less than 10%. The ICR and DCR were identified by logistic regression. Treatment safety was assessed.
resultsA total of 81 patients underwent randomization (41 assigned to the CA and 40 assigned to the AHC groups)and transthoracic ablation. The ICRs in the CA and AHC groups were 99.24% ± 2.18% and 98.66% ± 3.79%, respectively. Central lesions were associated with an increased risk of an incomplete ICR. The DCRs in the CA and AHC groups were 97.6% and 95%, respectively. A smaller lesion area in the CA group was significantly correlated with a better DCR. The rate of complications was 29.26% in the CA group and 30% in the AHC group. (P = 0.943). There was less probe usage per patient in the CA group.
conclusionsWe determined that CA is noninferior to AHC in terms of efficacy and safety for the treatment of stage III-IV NSCLC. A smaller lesion area in the CA group was significantly correlated with a better DCR. KEY POINTS: CA was noninferior to AHC for stage III-IV 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.