Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33870454›Full record

SynthesisAbdominal radiology (New York)2021

Percutaneous microwave ablation versus radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Qian Yu, Chenyu Liu, Rakesh Navuluri, Osman Ahmed

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Guideline
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Microwave ablation as a primary versus secondary treatment for hepatocellular carcinomaDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2023
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Qian YuDepartment of General Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA. yuq2@ccf.org.
Chenyu LiuBen&May Department of Cancer Research, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Rakesh NavuluriDepartment of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Osman AhmedDepartment of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
University of Chicago · USCleveland Clinic Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePercutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) are well-validated interventions for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The purpose of this study was to compare their safety and efficacy through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT).

methodsMEDLINE, Pubmed, and the Cochrane Library were queried up to September 2020 using the terms "microwave", "radiofrequency", "hepatocellular", and "randomized". Only RCTs investigating MWA versus RFA for HCC were included. Baseline study characteristics, complete ablation rate, ablation time, overall survival, local recurrence, and complication rates were investigated.

resultsAmong the five original studies included, a total of 413 and 431 patients were treated with RFA and MWA, respectively. All studies focused on very early and early-stage HCC only (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage 0 and A). No statistical significance was observed in terms of complete ablation rate (96.7 vs 96.9%, p = 0.882), overall survival (6 month: 95.7 vs 100%, p = 0.492; 1 year: 91.9 vs 94.1%, p = 0.264; 3 year: 77.5 vs 78.4%, p = 0.905), recurrence-free survival (6 month: 99.1 vs 99.7%, p = 0.717; 1 year: 94.6 vs 93.9%, p = 0.675; 3 year: 76.8 vs 77.1%, p = 0.935), and complication rates (p > 0.05 in all types). The mean ablation time of MWA was significantly shorter than RFA (26.9 vs 14.1 min, p < 0.001).

conclusionFor very early and early-stage HCC, RFA and MWA are equally safe and effective, though the former is associated with a longer ablation time.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularCatheter AblationLiver NeoplasmsRadiofrequency AblationHumansMicrowavesNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeHepatocellular carcinomaMeta-analysisMicrowaveRadiofrequencyRandomized clinical trial

Identifiers

PMID33870454
OpenAlexW3153423148

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.