| Literature DB >> 28881688 |
Pengyuan Song1, Lijun Sheng1, Yahong Sun1, Yuji An1, Ya Guo1, Yafei Zhang1.
Abstract
In recent years, the microwave ablation (MWA) has been reported to play an important role in the treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). In this work, 62 cases of patients who received MWA for liver metastases from colon or rectal cancer between Jan 2012 and Jan 2014 were enrolled in this trial. 28 underwent MWA, and 34 were treated with liver resection as control. Perioperative and 60 months of follow-up data were collected to analyze potential adverse effects, concurrent conditions and survival status. Here, we found there were no significant differences between both groups in the baseline level, including gender, size, number and pathological type (all p>0.05). In those patients, the mean hospitalization duration of patients with MWA is 5.9±0.9d, which is significantly different from control (11.8±6.9 d) (p<0.001). Little severe complication was observed in MWA group, while 26.5% (9/34) of patients developed severe complications (p=0.003). Besides, the mean hospitalization cost of patients with MWA was significantly less than that of control (p<0.000). Additionally, we found no statistically significant differences in disease-free survival (DFS) (p=0.156) or overall survival (OS) (p=0.580). In conclusion, MWA may be a safe, economical and competent way to treat inoperable CRLM patients, which has more advantages than liver resection in some degree.Entities:
Keywords: CRLM; DFS; MWA; OS
Year: 2017 PMID: 28881688 PMCID: PMC5584289 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.15244
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Pathological identification of CRLM
HE staining was conducted, and two pathological experts identified the relevant pathological type of liver biopsy tissues.
Figure 2Procedure of MWA using ultrasound imaging
The white arrow indicated the potential lesions in the liver. At the same time, we calculated the diameter of tumors as shown in the right and upper part of images.
Patient demographics and baseline characteristics
| Indicators | Type | MWA ( | Resection ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 15 | 18 | 0.002 | 0.961 |
| Female | 13 | 16 | |||
| Age (years) | ≤60 | 16 | 28 | 4.736 | 0.030 |
| >60 | 12 | 6 | |||
| Number | 1 | 18 | 22 | 0.001 | 0.973 |
| 2~3 | 10 | 12 | |||
| Size | ≤3 cm | 14 | 20 | 0.483 | 0.487 |
| >3 cm | 14 | 14 | |||
| Child-Pugh | A | 20 | 26 | 0.204 | 0.652 |
| B | 8 | 8 | |||
| Metastasis time | Heterochronisma | 18 | 18 | 0.812 | 0.368 |
| Synchronismb | 10 | 16 | |||
| Pathological type | Low differentiation | 10 | 13 | 0.247 | 0.884 |
| Mild differentiation | 14 | 15 | |||
| High differentiation | 4 | 6 |
a: CRLM occurred at less than 6 months following the CRC resection.
b: CRLM occurred at more than 6 months after the CRC resection
Figure 3Post-operative CT imaging in a cohort of MWA patients
a. After one month post-treatment with MWA, the CT imaging showed the low intensity of lesions without peripheral enhancement; b. After three months post-treatment with MWA, the CT imaging showed the low intensity of lesions without peripheral enhancement; c. After six months post-treatment with MWA, the CT imaging showed much lower intensity of lesions without peripheral enhancement than ever.
The hospitalization time and costs in both group
| group | Time (d) | Cost (thousand) |
|---|---|---|
| MWA ( | 5.9±0.9 | 29±5 |
| Resection ( | 11.8±6.9 | 55±8 |
| T value | -4.487 | 14.949 |
| P value | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Figure 4Disease-free survival curve for 28 patients in the MWA treatment group and 34 patients in control group
Figure 5Overall survival curve for 28 patients in the MWA treatment group and 34 patients in control group
Main potential advantages and disadvantages of MWA
| Potential advantages | Potential disadvantages |
|---|---|
| Good effects on tumors larger than 3 cm | Little efficacy data |