Chong Hyun Suh1,2, Jung Hwan Baek1, Young Jun Choi1, Jeong Hyun Lee1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine , Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. 2. 2 Department of Radiology, Namwon Medical Center , Namwon, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and ethanol ablation (EA) for treating locally recurrent thyroid cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for studies on the efficacy and safety of RFA and EA for treating locally recurrent thyroid cancer. The pooled proportions of the volume reduction ratio (VRR) ≥50%, complete disappearance, changes in serum level of thyroglobulin (Tg), recurrence, and complications were assessed using random-effects modeling. Heterogeneity among studies was determined using the chi-square statistic for the pooled estimates and the inconsistency index I(2). To overcome heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: Ten eligible studies were included, with a total sample size of 270 patients and 415 thyroid nodules. The pooled proportion of VRR ≥50% after RFA (100%, recalculated 100%; I(2) = 100%, recalculated I(2) = 55.3%) was higher than that after EA (89.5%; I(2) = 82.4%; p = 0.2764); the pooled proportion of complete disappearance after RFA (68.8%) was higher than that after EA (53.4%; p = 0.3384); and the pooled proportion of recurrence after RFA (0.0%) was lower than that after EA (2.4%, adjusted 1.6%; p = 0.9766). However, these differences were not statistically significant. In addition, the pooled proportion of reduction in serum level of Tg after RFA was 71.6% and after EA was 93.8% (p < 0.0001). The pooled proportion of complications of both RFA (5.8%, adjusted 1.6%) and EA (1.6%) were low (p = 0.8479). The mean number of RFA sessions was <1.3 in five of six RFA studies, and the number of EA sessions was more than two in three of four EA studies. CONCLUSION: Both RFA and EA are acceptable treatment modalities to manage locally recurrent thyroid cancer in terms of efficacy and safety for poor surgical candidates or those who refuse surgery.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and ethanol ablation (EA) for treating locally recurrent thyroid cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for studies on the efficacy and safety of RFA and EA for treating locally recurrent thyroid cancer. The pooled proportions of the volume reduction ratio (VRR) ≥50%, complete disappearance, changes in serum level of thyroglobulin (Tg), recurrence, and complications were assessed using random-effects modeling. Heterogeneity among studies was determined using the chi-square statistic for the pooled estimates and the inconsistency index I(2). To overcome heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: Ten eligible studies were included, with a total sample size of 270 patients and 415 thyroid nodules. The pooled proportion of VRR ≥50% after RFA (100%, recalculated 100%; I(2) = 100%, recalculated I(2) = 55.3%) was higher than that after EA (89.5%; I(2) = 82.4%; p = 0.2764); the pooled proportion of complete disappearance after RFA (68.8%) was higher than that after EA (53.4%; p = 0.3384); and the pooled proportion of recurrence after RFA (0.0%) was lower than that after EA (2.4%, adjusted 1.6%; p = 0.9766). However, these differences were not statistically significant. In addition, the pooled proportion of reduction in serum level of Tg after RFA was 71.6% and after EA was 93.8% (p < 0.0001). The pooled proportion of complications of both RFA (5.8%, adjusted 1.6%) and EA (1.6%) were low (p = 0.8479). The mean number of RFA sessions was <1.3 in five of six RFA studies, and the number of EA sessions was more than two in three of four EA studies. CONCLUSION: Both RFA and EA are acceptable treatment modalities to manage locally recurrent thyroid cancer in terms of efficacy and safety for poor surgical candidates or those who refuse surgery.
Authors: Antonio Barile; Simone Quarchioni; Federico Bruno; Anna Maria Ierardi; Francesco Arrigoni; Aldo Victor Giordano; Sergio Carducci; Marco Varrassi; Giampaolo Carrafiello; Ferdinando Caranci; Alessandra Splendiani; Ernesto Di Cesare; Carlo Masciocchi Journal: Gland Surg Date: 2018-04
Authors: Yang Guang; Yukun Luo; Yan Zhang; Mingbo Zhang; Nan Li; Ying Zhang; Jie Tang Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2017-03-24 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: S Mazzeo; R Cervelli; R Elisei; G Tarantini; C Cappelli; E Molinaro; D Galleri; L De Napoli; C Comite; R Cioni; P Vitti; D Caramella Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Arian Mansur; Tushar Garg; Apurva Shrigiriwar; Vahid Etezadi; Christos Georgiades; Peiman Habibollahi; Timothy C Huber; Juan C Camacho; Sherif G Nour; Alan Alper Sag; John David Prologo; Nariman Nezami Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-05-24
Authors: Giovanni Mauri; Laszlo Hegedüs; Steven Bandula; Roberto Luigi Cazzato; Agnieszka Czarniecka; Oliver Dudeck; Laura Fugazzola; Romana Netea-Maier; Gilles Russ; Göran Wallin; Enrico Papini Journal: Eur Thyroid J Date: 2021-05-25
Authors: Ralph P Tufano; Pia Pace-Asciak; Jonathon O Russell; Carlos Suárez; Gregory W Randolph; Fernando López; Ashok R Shaha; Antti Mäkitie; Juan P Rodrigo; Luiz Paulo Kowalski; Mark Zafereo; Peter Angelos; Alfio Ferlito Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 5.555