Marcello Di Martino1, Gianluca Rompianesi2, Ismael Mora-Guzmán3, Elena Martín-Pérez3, Roberto Montalti4, Roberto I Troisi5. 1. Department of Surgery, HPB Unit, University Hospital La Princesa, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: marcellodima@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Surgery, HPB Unit, University Hospital La Princesa, Madrid, Spain. 4. Department of Public Health, Federico II University, Naples, Italy. 5. Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University, Naples, Italy; Department of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, King Faisal Hospital and Research Center, Al Faisal University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Local ablative therapies (LAT) have shown positive but heterogenous outcomes in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate LAT and compare them with surgical resection. METHODS: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were searched for reports published before January 2019. We included papers assessing radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation (MWA), cryoablation (CA) and electroporation (IRE) treating resectable CRLM with curative intention. We evaluated LAT related complications and oncological outcomes as tumour progression (LTP), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The literature search yielded 6767 records; 20 papers (860 patients) were included. No included studies related mortality with LAT. Median adverse events percentage was 7%: (8% RFA;7% MWA). Median 3y-DFS was 32% (24% RFA; 60% MWA); 5y-DFS was 27%: (18% RFA; 38.5% MWA). Median 3y-OS was 59% (60% RFA; 70% MWA; 34% CA), 5y-OS was 44.5% (43% RFA; 55% MWA; 20% CA). Surgical resection showed decreased LTP, improved DFS and OS than those reported with LAT, with RFA accounting for reduced 1y-DFS (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.71-0.98), 3y-DFS (RR 0.5, 95%CI 0.33-0.76), 5y-DFS (RR 0.53, 95%CI 0.28-0.98) and 5y-OS (RR 0.76, 95%CI 0.58-0.98) in comparison with surgical resection. CONCLUSIONS: Low quality evidence suggests that both RFA and MWA seem superior to CA. MWA presents similar adverse events when compared to RFA with a possible increase in DFS and OS. Surgical resection still seems to provide superior DFS and OS in comparison with LAT.
INTRODUCTION: Local ablative therapies (LAT) have shown positive but heterogenous outcomes in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate LAT and compare them with surgical resection. METHODS: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were searched for reports published before January 2019. We included papers assessing radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation (MWA), cryoablation (CA) and electroporation (IRE) treating resectable CRLM with curative intention. We evaluated LAT related complications and oncological outcomes as tumour progression (LTP), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The literature search yielded 6767 records; 20 papers (860 patients) were included. No included studies related mortality with LAT. Median adverse events percentage was 7%: (8% RFA;7% MWA). Median 3y-DFS was 32% (24% RFA; 60% MWA); 5y-DFS was 27%: (18% RFA; 38.5% MWA). Median 3y-OS was 59% (60% RFA; 70% MWA; 34% CA), 5y-OS was 44.5% (43% RFA; 55% MWA; 20% CA). Surgical resection showed decreased LTP, improved DFS and OS than those reported with LAT, with RFA accounting for reduced 1y-DFS (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.71-0.98), 3y-DFS (RR 0.5, 95%CI 0.33-0.76), 5y-DFS (RR 0.53, 95%CI 0.28-0.98) and 5y-OS (RR 0.76, 95%CI 0.58-0.98) in comparison with surgical resection. CONCLUSIONS: Low quality evidence suggests that both RFA and MWA seem superior to CA. MWA presents similar adverse events when compared to RFA with a possible increase in DFS and OS. Surgical resection still seems to provide superior DFS and OS in comparison with LAT.
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: Elske C Gootjes; Eric P van der Stok; Cornelis Verhoef; Henk M W Verheul; Tineke E Buffart; Lotte Bakkerus; Mariette Labots; Barbara M Zonderhuis; Jurriaan B Tuynman; Martijn R Meijerink; Peter M van de Ven; Cornelis J A Haasbeek; Albert J Ten Tije; Jan-Willem B de Groot; Mathijs P Hendriks; Esther van Meerten; Joost J M E Nuyttens; Dirk J Grunhagen Journal: Oncologist Date: 2020-06-16
Authors: Marcello Di Martino; Javier García Septiem; Rocío Maqueda González; Jose Luis Muñoz de Nova; Ángela de la Hoz Rodríguez; Alba Correa Bonito; Elena Martín-Pérez Journal: Cir Esp (Engl Ed) Date: 2020-04-29
Authors: S Acciuffi; F Meyer; A Bauschke; R Croner; U Settmacher; A Altendorf-Hofmann Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Raghav Chandra; John D Karalis; Charles Liu; Gilbert Z Murimwa; Josiah Voth Park; Christopher A Heid; Scott I Reznik; Emina Huang; John D Minna; Rolf A Brekken Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 6.639