ArticleInterventional radiology (Higashimatsuyama-shi (Japan)2020
Clinical Outcomes and Techniques for Radiofrequency Ablation of Lung Tumors Smaller than 1 cm.
Article in Interventional radiology (Higashimatsuyama-shi (Japan), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Novel strategy to treat lung metastases: Hybrid therapy involving surgery and radiofrequency ablation.Thoracic cancer · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the outcomes of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) on lung tumors < 1 cm in maximum diameter. Materials and Methods: Twenty-eight patients (12 male, 16 female; median age, 59 years; mean age, 58 ± 16 years; range, 16-78 years) who underwent RFA for lung tumors < 1 cm in diameter between November 2009 and September 2018 were included in this study. Thirty-five tumors (median size, 8.4 mm; mean size, 7.7 ± 1.9 mm; range, 3.6-9.9 mm) were treated with 33 sessions of RFA. Technique efficacy and safety were subsequently evaluated. Initial and secondary technique efficacy were defined as complete ablation without residual tumor or local tumor progression after initial and repeat RFA, respectively. Safety was evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Results: Residual tumor remained for 1 tumor (3%, 1/35) and local tumor progression was found in 2 tumors (6%, 2/35). Initial technique efficacy rate was therefore 91% (32/35). The remaining 3 tumors were treated by repeat RFA (secondary technique efficacy rate: 100%, 35/35). Initial technique efficacy rate was significantly lower for tumors treated with starting energy ≥ 20 W (P = 0.02) and showing a quick increase in tissue impedance (P = 0.01). There were 4 grade 2 adverse events (12%, 4/33) comprising pneumothorax requiring chest tube placement, and 14 grade 1 adverse events comprising self-limiting pneumothorax (36%, 12/33) and pulmonary parenchymal hemorrhage (6%, 2/33). Conclusion: To achieve good outcomes for lung tumors < 1 cm, radiofrequency energy should be started at < 20 W. Application of manual mode ablation might be considered when delivery of power cannot be continued due to a quick increase in tissue impedance.
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.