ReviewCancers2024
Evaluating the Accuracy and Efficiency of Imaging Modalities in Guiding Ablation for Metastatic Spinal Column Tumors: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current Trends in Therapeutic Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma of the Spine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2026Review
- Diagnostic value, sensitivity and specificity of CT, MRI, and PET in evaluation of cartilage invasion in laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Effect of Cold Saline Pre-Washing on Cement Leakage in Vertebroplasty: A Novel Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesSpinal metastases are a frequent and serious complication in cancer patients, often causing severe pain, instability, and neurological deficits. Thermal ablation techniques such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation (MWA), and cryoablation (CA) have emerged as minimally invasive treatments. These techniques rely on precise imaging guidance to effectively target lesions while minimizing complications. This systematic review aims to compare the efficacy of different imaging modalities-computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), fluoroscopy, and mixed techniques-in guiding thermal ablation for spinal metastases, focusing on success rates and complications.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, OVID, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases, yielding 3733 studies. After screening, 51 studies met the eligibility criteria. Data on success rates, tumor recurrence, complications, and patient outcomes were extracted. Success was defined as no procedure-related mortality, tumor recurrence or expansion, or nerve injury. This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024567174).
resultsCT-guided thermal ablation demonstrated high success rates, especially with RFA (75% complete success). Although less frequently employed, MRI guidance showed lower complication rates and improved soft-tissue contrast. Fluoroscopy-guided procedures were effective but had a higher incidence of nerve injury and incomplete tumor control. Mixed imaging techniques, such as CBCT-MRI fusion, showed potential for reducing complications and improving targeting accuracy.
conclusionsCT remains the most reliable imaging modality for guiding thermal ablation in spinal metastases, while MRI provides enhanced safety in complex cases. Fluoroscopy, although effective for real-time guidance, presents limitations in soft-tissue contrast. Mixed imaging techniques like CBCT-MRI fusion offer promising solutions by combining the advantages of both CT and MRI, warranting further exploration in future studies.
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.