ArticleCancer management and research2024
Clinical Efficacy of Microwave Ablation Combined with Percutaneous Osteoplasty in the Treatment of Flat Bone Metastases.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Evaluating the clinical efficacy and safety of microwave ablation combined with percutaneous osteoplasty (MWA + PO group) versus percutaneous osteoplasty (PO group) for the treatment of flat bone metastases. Methods: Patients with flat bone metastases and intractable pain who underwent PO and/or MWA from January 2016 to January 2023 in our hospital were included, with 36 cases in the MWA+PO group and 21 cases in the PO group. Changes in the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and quality of life assessment scale(QOL) were evaluated regularly. Postoperative complications and target lesion tumor treatment responses were also observed. Results: The VAS and ODI in both the MWA+PO group and the PO group significantly decreased at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months postoperatively, The VAS and ODI in the MWA+PO group were lower than those in the PO group postoperatively. The QOL in both the MWA+PO group and the PO group significantly increased at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months postoperatively, with the QOL in the MWA+PO group being higher than that in the PO group postoperatively. According to the mRECIST criteria (target lesion tumor treatment response), the ORR in the MWA+PO group and PO group was 52.8% and 9.5%, respectively, while the DCR was 94.4% and 57.1%, respectively (P <0.001 and<0.001). Different degrees of bone cement extravasation were observed in both the PO group (38.1%) and MWA+PO group(19.4%)(χ²=2.38, P=0.12), but none of the patients developed clinical symptoms related to bone cement extravasation. The average cost of surgery was ¥10,480.43 higher in the MWA+PO group than in the PO group. Conclusion: The MWA+PO treatment is more effective in relieving patients' local pain, improving local dysfunction, and enhancing quality of life, and can effectively improve target lesion tumor ORR and DCR, but it is also more costly.
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.