SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2025
Radiofrequency Ablation Technology in Liver Malignancies: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.
Synthesis in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLiver malignancies, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), present significant treatment challenges, with limited curative options available. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has emerged as a minimally invasive therapeutic approach for early-stage HCC, offering comparable survival benefits to surgical resections in some patients. However, the economic implications of RFA relative to other treatment modalities remain a critical factor in decision-making. This study systematically reviews economic evaluations of RFA to assess its viability in managing liver malignancies.
methodsA systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, were searched for economic evaluations of RFA published from 2015 onwards. Eligible studies compared RFA with other curative and palliative treatments, focusing on health-related economic outcomes. The primary outcome of the included studies was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
resultsTen studies met the inclusion criteria, covering diverse healthcare systems and cost-effectiveness models. The results indicated that RFA is generally more cost-effective than percutaneous ethanol injection [incremental cost: $ - 917, incremental effectiveness: 0.34, ICER: $ - 2675] and laparoscopic hepatectomy [incremental costs: ¥ - 4702, incremental effectiveness: 0] but less cost-effective than microwave ablation [ICER: dominated], liver resection, and transplantation [ICER: between $23,916 and $113,530/QALY] at higher willingness-to-pay thresholds. Comparisons with stereotactic body radiotherapy and surgery yielded mixed results.
conclusionsRFA is a cost-effective treatment for small HCC tumors, particularly in resource-limited settings. However, its cost-effectiveness declines with increasing tumor size compared to liver transplantation. Further real-world economic evaluations and modeling studies are needed to confirm its affordability across different healthcare settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40504321What 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.