ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2026
CT-guided ablation for stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a comparative study between cryoablation and microwave ablation.
Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComputed tomography (CT)-guided tumor ablation has emerged as an important treatment option for patients with stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are poor surgical candidates. Here, the clinical performance and safety profiles of cryoablation (CA) and microwave ablation (MWA) for stage I NSCLC were compared.
methodsConsecutive patients with stage I NSCLC treated with CT-guided CA or MWA between November 2022 and March 2025 were retrospectively enrolled. Outcomes evaluated included ablation effectiveness, long-term survival, and procedure-related complications, which were examined and compared between groups.
resultsNinety-one patients were eligible for analysis in the present study, of whom 48 underwent CA and 43 underwent MWA. Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between groups. Primary complete ablation rates were 93.8% for CA and 95.3% for MWA (p = 1.000); secondary complete ablation was achieved in all remaining cases in both cohorts. Patients treated with CA reported significantly lower procedural pain scores than those treated with MWA (median 1 vs. 3, p < 0.001). Median postoperative hospital stay was comparable (3 vs. 2 days, p = 0.376). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 16 months for CA and 15 months for MWA (p = 0.763), while median overall survival (OS) was 23 and 24 months, respectively (p = 0.894). Complication rates were similar in both groups.
conclusionsFor stage I NSCLC, both CA and MWA demonstrated comparable therapeutic efficacy and safety. However, CA offered the advantage of reduced intraprocedural pain compared with MWA.
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.