SynthesisCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2025
Radiofrequency Ablation of Painful Spinal Metastasis: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiofrequency Ablation for the Treatment of Bone Metastases: Results of the SPARTA Study.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Trial
- Expert Consensus Develops Multidisciplinary Pathway for Cancer Pain Management in Italy: A Delphi Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- [Surgical treatment options for bone metastases].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Article
- Comparative Effectiveness of Kyphoplasty and Radiation with or Without Radiofrequency Ablation in Spinal Metastases from Lung Cancer.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for managing pain caused by spinal metastases. This review aimed to consolidate evidence on RFA's analgesic efficacy and associated risks to inform clinical practice in palliative cancer care.
methodsA systematic review adhering to PRISMA guidelines was conducted. Databases were searched for studies evaluating RFA for spinal metastases pain. Inclusion criteria specified: randomized or non-randomized studies (prospective/retrospective); ≥3 adult patients; RFA used alone or combined with other treatments; reported pre- and post-RFA pain assessments; English language publication. Data extracted included patient demographics, primary tumor type, lesion location, pain scores (e.g., NRS/VAS), and complications. Pain response was assessed using definitions including the International Consensus Pain Response Endpoints (ICPRE) and definitions for moderate (≥2-point reduction) and high (≥4-point reduction) effectiveness.
resultsThis review included 33 studies, totaling 1336 patients (53.7% female) and 1787 treated lesions. The majority (85%) of studies reported highly effective pain management (≥4-point pain score reduction). The remaining 15% showed moderate effectiveness (≥2-point reduction). All studies reported achieving at least a partial pain response per ICPRE criteria. Mean pain scores decreased significantly from baseline (7.56/10) within 24-72 h (3.65) and remained low at 4 weeks (2.99), 12 weeks, and 24 weeks (both 2.70). Common primary cancers were lung (27.6%), breast (26.2%), and genitourinary (11.3%). Lesions were primarily in the thoracic (47.9%) and lumbar spine (47.3%). Crucially, no life-threatening (grade IV-V) complications occurred. The overall rate of grade I-III complications was low at 2.11%. LIMITATIONS: This systematic review is limited by its study-level nature, preventing detailed subgroup analyses regarding specific metastasis characteristics or the impact of complementary therapies.
conclusionsThis systematic review suggests that RFA is a safe and effective treatment for pain control in patients with spinal metastases. It provides both rapid (within 24 h) and durable mid-term (up to 24 weeks) analgesia. The favorable safety profile, with a low complication rate, supports RFA as a valuable complimentary option within the multidisciplinary palliative management of painful spinal secondary tumors. Future randomized-controlled studies may help to further define its role when associated with other treatments.
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.