ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2025
Safety and efficacy of transbronchial radiofrequency ablation for stage IA peripheral lung cancer: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Annual progress in transbronchial diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary malignant tumors [2025]: a narrative review.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Review
- Mid-term efficacy and safety of transbronchial cryoablation for stage IA peripheral lung cancer: a retrospective analysis.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
- Research status and trend of lung cancer ablation therapy: a bibliometric analysis from 2002 to 2025.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Bronchoscopic ablation for non-small cell lung cancer.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a commonly used treatment for inoperable early-stage lung cancer, though it carries a significant risk of complications. Transbronchial RFA has emerged as a promising alternative, but robust clinical evidence supporting its adoption remains scarce. This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of transbronchial RFA in treating early-stage peripheral lung cancer. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with early-stage (IA) peripheral lung cancer who underwent transbronchial RFA due to inoperability or refusal of surgery from August 2020 to December 2023. All patients underwent transbronchial RFA under the guidance of X-ray or cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). The safety endpoint included the incidence of adverse events in the month after ablation. The efficacy endpoints involved the local control progression-free survival (LPFS), as well as the factors affecting therapeutic outcomes. Results: A total of 46 patients with 51 tumors underwent 55 transbronchial RFA procedures. The mean age of patients was 67.7 years, and the mean lesion size was 16.4 mm. Adverse events and intervention-acquired adverse events were reported in 11.5% and 9.8% of participants. The local control analysis revealed 1-, 2-, and 3-year LPFS rates of 87.5%, 73.4%, and 69.8%, respectively. The efficacy predictor analysis revealed that transbronchial RFA guided by CBCT had significantly better LPFS compared to that of X-ray guidance (1- and 3-year LPFS rates: 97.2% Conclusions: Transbronchial RFA for peripheral lung cancer showed a favorable safety profile. The efficacy of transbronchial RFA was also evaluated, and it was found that CBCT-guided bronchial ablation had better outcomes. Future studies will require prospective randomized controlled trials to further confirm its efficacy.
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.