ArticleUltrasonography (Seoul, Korea)2022
Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for hepatic metastasis of colorectal cancer: assessment of tumor visibility and the feasibility of the procedure with planning ultrasonography.
Article in Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Targeting the invisible: precision fiducial marker placement in poorly visible liver tumors prior to percutaneous ablation using real-time image fusion guidance.Frontiers in radiology · 2025Article
- Tips for Preparing and Practicing Thermal Ablation Therapy of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Cancers · 2023Review
- Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of solitary hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: risk factors of local tumor progression-free survival and overall survival.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2022Article
- Disappearing Colorectal Liver Metastases: Do We Really Need a Ghostbuster?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to assess the incidence and causes of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) infeasibility in cases of metastatic colorectal cancer and to evaluate factors affecting the invisibility of the tumor on planning ultrasonography (US).
methodsThis study screened 386 patients who underwent planning US using fusion imaging and/or contrast-enhanced US for percutaneous RFA for suspected metastatic colorectal cancer between January 2013 and December 2020, from whom 136 patients with a single hepatic metastasis from colorectal cancer measuring <3 cm were included. The factors related to the infeasibility of percutaneous RFA were investigated. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the factors associated with tumor invisibility on planning US.
resultsAmong the 136 patients, percutaneous RFA was considered infeasible in 24.3% (33/136) due to a high risk of the heat-sink effect caused by the abutment of a large vessel (n=12), an inconspicuous tumor on planning US (n=11), a high risk of collateral thermal damage to an adjacent organ (n=8), and the absence of a safe electrode path (n=2). In univariate and multivariate analyses, tumor size was a statistically significant factor affecting invisibility on planning US (P=0.003 and P=0.018, respectively).
conclusionPercutaneous RFA was infeasible in approximately one-fourth of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. The reason for the infeasibility was mainly an unfavorable tumor location and invisibility on planning US. Small tumor size was the sole significant factor affecting the invisibility of hepatic metastases on planning US.
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.