Comparison between surgery and radiofrequency ablation for stage I non-small cell lung cancer.

Surgical resection remains as the treatment of choice for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and provides the best opportunity for cure and long-term survival. Minimally invasive percutaneous ablative therapies, such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for treating lung cancers, are currently being studied as treatment alternatives. But, to date, there is little information on comparison of therapeutic effects between surgery and RFA in patients with early stage lung malignancy. We aimed to investigate the clinical significance of RFA as an alternative curative modality for the early stage lung cancer through analyzing the long-term mortality of both treatment groups; surgery vs. RFA. Twenty-two patients of stage I NSCLC were included for this comparative analysis. To minimize confounding effects, we conducted a matching process. In which patients of RFA group (n = 8) were matched with patients of surgery group (n = 14) on the following variables; gender, age (± 3 years), tumor node metastasis stage, and calendar year of surgery or RFA (± 2 years). The mean survival duration of RFA group and surgery group were 33.18 ± 7.90 and 45.49 ± 7.21, respectively (months, p = 0.297). Log-rank analysis showed that there was no significant difference in overall survival (p = 0.054) between two groups. These results have shown that RFA can offer the survival comparable to that by surgery to stage I NSCLC patients, especially to the patients impossible for the surgery. This study provides an evidence for the use of RFA as a treatment alternative with low procedural morbidity for inoperable early-stage NSCLC patients.