ArticleTranslational cancer research2025
Thermal ablation versus surgical resection for colorectal liver metastases: a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-assessed systematic review, survival meta-analysis, and meta-regression.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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: Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, with liver metastases occurring in nearly 50% of patients during the disease course. This study aims to compare survival outcomes, including overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), and tumor recurrence risks between thermal ablation and surgical resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs), incorporating recent randomized trial data to provide updated recommendations. Methods: Searches were performed across PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify relevant studies comparing thermal ablation with surgical resection for CRLM. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models for pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and risk ratios (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using I Results: A total of 29 studies involving 5,719 patients were included in the analysis. Thermal ablation was associated with significantly worse OS compared to surgical resection (HR =1.56; 95% CI: 1.25-1.94). Subgroup analyses revealed that radiofrequency ablation (RFA) notably increased mortality risk (HR =1.63; 95% CI: 1.26-2.51), whereas microwave ablation (MWA) demonstrated non-inferiority to surgical resection. For tumors <3 cm, no significant survival difference was observed between the interventions, but for lesions ≥3 cm, surgical resection showed improved survival (HR =1.49; 95% CI: 1.16-1.91). DFS analysis showed a higher recurrence risk with thermal ablation (HR =1.93; 95% CI: 1.45-2.57). Local tumor recurrence was over three times more frequent following ablation compared to resection (RR =3.03; 95% CI: 1.99-4.61), while distal recurrence rates did not differ significantly. Heterogeneity was substantial for survival outcomes (I Conclusions: Surgical resection remains superior to thermal ablation in terms of OS and DFS, particularly for larger lesions (>3 cm). While thermal ablation, especially MWA, offers a promising alternative for smaller lesions, its increased risk of local recurrence warrants careful patient selection and precise procedural execution. These findings underscore the need for personalized, lesion-specific approaches to CRLM management, integrating advancements in ablation technology and hybrid surgical-ablation strategies.
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.