Pascale Tinguely1, Gabriella Dal2, Matteo Bottai3, Henrik Nilsson2, Jacob Freedman2, Jennie Engstrand4. 1. Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet at Danderyd Hospital, 182 88, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Inselspital University Hospital Bern, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland. 2. Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet at Danderyd Hospital, 182 88, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Division of Biostatistics, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, 182 88, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet at Danderyd Hospital, 182 88, Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: jennie.engstrand@ki.se.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Many previous studies comparing liver resection versus thermal ablation for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLM) are subject to severe selection bias. The aim of this study was to compare survival after microwave ablation (MWA) versus liver resection for CRCLM in a population-based cohort study using propensity score analysis to reduce confounding by indication. METHODS: All patients undergoing liver resection or MWA as a first intervention for CRCLM measuring ≤ 3 cm between 2013 and 2016 in Sweden were included from a nationwide registry. Treatment effect was estimated after propensity score matching, adjusting for patient and tumour factors known to affect the choice of treatment approach. Descriptive, regression and survival statistics were applied. RESULTS: The unmatched cohorts (82 MWA patients, 645 resection patients) differed significantly regarding age, American Society of Anaesthesiologists class, Charlson comorbidity index, primary tumour location, number of metastases and previous chemotherapy, with 3-year overall survival (OS) favouring resection over MWA (76 and 69%, p = 0.005). After propensity score matching (70 MWA patients, 201 resection patients), no difference in 3-year OS was shown between resected and ablated patients (76% and 76%, p = 0.253), with a median OS of 54.7 (95% confidence interval 48.6 - 60.9) months and 48 (40.1-56.1) months, respectively. CONCLUSION: After adjusting for factors known to affect treatment choice, no significant difference in OS was shown after MWA versus resection for CRCLM. This supports the potential role of MWA as a valid first-line treatment for patients with small CRCLM.
INTRODUCTION: Many previous studies comparing liver resection versus thermal ablation for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLM) are subject to severe selection bias. The aim of this study was to compare survival after microwave ablation (MWA) versus liver resection for CRCLM in a population-based cohort study using propensity score analysis to reduce confounding by indication. METHODS: All patients undergoing liver resection or MWA as a first intervention for CRCLM measuring ≤ 3 cm between 2013 and 2016 in Sweden were included from a nationwide registry. Treatment effect was estimated after propensity score matching, adjusting for patient and tumour factors known to affect the choice of treatment approach. Descriptive, regression and survival statistics were applied. RESULTS: The unmatched cohorts (82 MWA patients, 645 resection patients) differed significantly regarding age, American Society of Anaesthesiologists class, Charlson comorbidity index, primary tumour location, number of metastases and previous chemotherapy, with 3-year overall survival (OS) favouring resection over MWA (76 and 69%, p = 0.005). After propensity score matching (70 MWA patients, 201 resection patients), no difference in 3-year OS was shown between resected and ablated patients (76% and 76%, p = 0.253), with a median OS of 54.7 (95% confidence interval 48.6 - 60.9) months and 48 (40.1-56.1) months, respectively. CONCLUSION: After adjusting for factors known to affect treatment choice, no significant difference in OS was shown after MWA versus resection for CRCLM. This supports the potential role of MWA as a valid first-line treatment for patients with small CRCLM.
Authors: Emily A Knott; Timothy J Ziemlewicz; Sam J Lubner; John F Swietlik; Sharon M Weber; Annie M Zlevor; Colin Longhurst; J Louis Hinshaw; Meghan G Lubner; Daniel L Mulkerin; Daniel E Abbott; Dustin Deming; Noelle K LoConte; Nataliya Uboha; Allison B Couillard; Shane A Wells; Paul F Laeseke; Marci L Alexander; Fred T Lee Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2021-08
Authors: Nikiforos Vasiniotis Kamarinos; Mithat Gonen; Vlasios Sotirchos; Elena Kaye; Elena N Petre; Stephen B Solomon; Joseph P Erinjeri; Etay Ziv; Assen Kirov; Constantinos T Sofocleous Journal: Int J Hyperthermia Date: 2022 Impact factor: 3.753
Authors: Simeon J S Ruiter; Pascale Tinguely; Iwan Paolucci; Jennie Engstrand; Daniel Candinas; Stefan Weber; Robbert J de Haas; Koert P de Jong; Jacob Freedman Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Sara Lindberg; Eva Onjukka; Peter Wersäll; Caroline Staff; Rolf Lewensohn; Giuseppe Masucci; Karin Lindberg Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-07-21
Authors: Robbert S Puijk; Madelon Dijkstra; Bente A T van den Bemd; Alette H Ruarus; Sanne Nieuwenhuizen; Bart Geboers; Florentine E F Timmer; Evelien A C Schouten; Jan J J de Vries; Bram B van der Meijs; Karin Nielsen; Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg; M Petrousjka van den Tol; Kathelijn S Versteeg; Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte; Hester J Scheffer; Martijn R Meijerink Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 2.797