Endoscopic radiofrequency ablation plus plastic stent placement versus stent placement alone for unresectable extrahepatic biliary cancer: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

• Published in: Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2021-07, Vol.94 (1), p.91-100.e2
• Main Authors: Gao, Dao-Jian, Yang, Jian-Feng, Ma, Shu-Ren, Wu, Jun, Wang, Tian-Tian, Jin, Hang-Bin, Xia, Ming-Xing, Zhang, Ying-Chun, Shen, Hong-Zhang, Ye, Xin, Zhang, Xiao-Feng, Hu, Bing
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 0016-5107; 1097-6779
• DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.12.016

We sought to compare the efficacy and safety between endoscopic radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and stent placement alone in patients with unresectable extrahepatic biliary cancer (EBC). In this randomized controlled trial, patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) or ampullary cancer who were unsuitable for surgery were recruited from 3 tertiary centers. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to RFA plus plastic stent placement (RFA group) or plastic stent placement alone (stent placement alone group) in a 1:1 ratio. Both groups underwent 2 scheduled interventions with an interval of approximately 3 months. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Altogether, 174 participants completed the 2 index endoscopic interventions. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were noted between the 2 groups. The median OS was significantly higher in the RFA group (14.3 vs 9.2 months; hazard ratio, .488; 95% confidence interval, .351-.678; P < .001). A survival benefit was also shown in patients with CCA (13.3 vs 9.2 months; hazard ratio, .546; 95% confidence interval, .386-.771; P < .001). However, no significant between-group differences were found in jaundice control or stent patency duration. The postprocedural Karnofsky performance scores were significantly higher in the RFA group until 9 months (all P < .001). Adverse events were comparable between the 2 groups (27.6% vs 19.5%, P = .211), except for acute cholecystitis, which was more frequently observed in the RFA group (9 vs 0, P = .003). Compared with stent placement alone, additional RFA may improve OS and quality of life of patients with inoperable primary EBC who do not undergo systemic treatments. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01844245.) [Display omitted]