Loading…

MWA Versus RFA for Perivascular and Peribiliary CRLM: A Retrospective Patient- and Lesion-Based Analysis of Two Historical Cohorts

Purpose To retrospectively analyse the safety and efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus microwave ablation (MWA) in the treatment of unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) in proximity to large vessels and/or major bile ducts. Method and Materials A database search was performed...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cardiovascular and interventional radiology 2016-10, Vol.39 (10), p.1438-1446
Main Authors: van Tilborg, Aukje A. J. M., Scheffer, Hester J., de Jong, Marcus C., Vroomen, Laurien G. P. H., Nielsen, Karin, van Kuijk, Cornelis, van den Tol, Petrousjka M. P., Meijerink, Martijn R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c531t-af0b949ff154d839adbca5d47c61bd07892ba708249146d799e4af169363c3e33
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c531t-af0b949ff154d839adbca5d47c61bd07892ba708249146d799e4af169363c3e33
container_end_page 1446
container_issue 10
container_start_page 1438
container_title Cardiovascular and interventional radiology
container_volume 39
creator van Tilborg, Aukje A. J. M.
Scheffer, Hester J.
de Jong, Marcus C.
Vroomen, Laurien G. P. H.
Nielsen, Karin
van Kuijk, Cornelis
van den Tol, Petrousjka M. P.
Meijerink, Martijn R.
description Purpose To retrospectively analyse the safety and efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus microwave ablation (MWA) in the treatment of unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) in proximity to large vessels and/or major bile ducts. Method and Materials A database search was performed to include patients with unresectable histologically proven and/or 18 F–FDG–PET avid CRLM who were treated with RFA or MWA between January 2001 and September 2014 in a single centre. All lesions that were considered to have a peribiliary and/or perivascular location were included. Univariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the distribution of patient, tumour and procedure characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression was used to correct for potential confounders. Results Two hundred and forty-three patients with 774 unresectable CRLM were ablated. One hundred and twenty-two patients (78 males; 44 females) had at least one perivascular or peribiliary lesion ( n  = 199). Primary efficacy rate of RFA was superior to MWA after 3 and 12 months of follow-up ( P  = 0.010 and P  = 0.022); however, after multivariate analysis this difference was non-significant at 12 months ( P  = 0.078) and vanished after repeat ablations ( P  = 0.39). More CTCAE grade III complications occurred after MWA versus RFA (18.8 vs. 7.9 %; P  = 0.094); biliary complications were especially common after peribiliary MWA ( P  = 0.002). Conclusion For perivascular CRLM, RFA and MWA are both safe treatment options that appear equally effective. For peribiliary CRLM, MWA has a higher complication rate than RFA, with similar efficacy. Based on these results, it is advised to use RFA for lesions in the proximity of major bile ducts.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00270-016-1413-3
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5009157</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4167894901</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c531t-af0b949ff154d839adbca5d47c61bd07892ba708249146d799e4af169363c3e33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkktv1DAUhSMEokPhB7BBltiwCfj6EccskMKIUqSpqEblsbMcx-m4ysRTO5mq2_5yPJMylAUSK0u-n8-99_hk2UvAbwFj8S5iTATOMRQ5MKA5fZTNgFGS47L4-TibYRAsB87hKHsW4xXGwEvCn2ZHRNBSQFnOsruzHxX6bkMcI1qeVKj1AZ3b4LY6mrHTAem-2V_UrnM63KL5cnH2HlVoaYfg48aawW0tOteDs_2Q7_GFjc73-UcdbYOqXne30UXkW3Rx49Gpi4MPzugOzf3KhyE-z560uov2xf15nH07-XQxP80XXz9_mVeL3HAKQ65bXEsm2xY4a0oqdVMbzRsmTAF1g0UpSa0FLgmTwIpGSGmZbqGQtKCGWkqPsw-T7mas17Yxad6gO7UJbp0WU1479Xeldyt16beKYyyBiyTwehLwcXAqGjdYszK-75MJipCCcYZ31Jv7NsFfjzYOau2isV2ne-vHqKAkaVbglP0HCkVBQRD8p_cBvfJjSN7uKS4JFUwmCibKpL-JwbaH7QCrXWTUFBmVIqN2kVE7W149tOXw4ndGEkAmIKZSf2nDg9b_VP0Ft6fK8A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1815923749</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>MWA Versus RFA for Perivascular and Peribiliary CRLM: A Retrospective Patient- and Lesion-Based Analysis of Two Historical Cohorts</title><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>van Tilborg, Aukje A. J. M. ; Scheffer, Hester J. ; de Jong, Marcus C. ; Vroomen, Laurien G. P. H. ; Nielsen, Karin ; van Kuijk, Cornelis ; van den Tol, Petrousjka M. P. ; Meijerink, Martijn R.</creator><creatorcontrib>van Tilborg, Aukje A. J. M. ; Scheffer, Hester J. ; de Jong, Marcus C. ; Vroomen, Laurien G. P. H. ; Nielsen, Karin ; van Kuijk, Cornelis ; van den Tol, Petrousjka M. P. ; Meijerink, Martijn R.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose To retrospectively analyse the safety and efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus microwave ablation (MWA) in the treatment of unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) in proximity to large vessels and/or major bile ducts. Method and Materials A database search was performed to include patients with unresectable histologically proven and/or 18 F–FDG–PET avid CRLM who were treated with RFA or MWA between January 2001 and September 2014 in a single centre. All lesions that were considered to have a peribiliary and/or perivascular location were included. Univariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the distribution of patient, tumour and procedure characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression was used to correct for potential confounders. Results Two hundred and forty-three patients with 774 unresectable CRLM were ablated. One hundred and twenty-two patients (78 males; 44 females) had at least one perivascular or peribiliary lesion ( n  = 199). Primary efficacy rate of RFA was superior to MWA after 3 and 12 months of follow-up ( P  = 0.010 and P  = 0.022); however, after multivariate analysis this difference was non-significant at 12 months ( P  = 0.078) and vanished after repeat ablations ( P  = 0.39). More CTCAE grade III complications occurred after MWA versus RFA (18.8 vs. 7.9 %; P  = 0.094); biliary complications were especially common after peribiliary MWA ( P  = 0.002). Conclusion For perivascular CRLM, RFA and MWA are both safe treatment options that appear equally effective. For peribiliary CRLM, MWA has a higher complication rate than RFA, with similar efficacy. Based on these results, it is advised to use RFA for lesions in the proximity of major bile ducts.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0174-1551</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-086X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00270-016-1413-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27387188</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>ABLATION ; Ablation Techniques - methods ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; BILE ; Bile Ducts - pathology ; Bile Ducts - surgery ; BILIARY TRACT ; Cardiology ; Catheter Ablation - methods ; Clinical Investigation ; Cohort Studies ; Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology ; Colorectal Neoplasms - surgery ; Female ; FLUORINE 18 ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Imaging ; LIVER ; Liver Neoplasms - secondary ; Liver Neoplasms - surgery ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; METASTASES ; MICROWAVE RADIATION ; Microwaves - therapeutic use ; Middle Aged ; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS ; NEOPLASMS ; Nuclear Medicine ; PATIENTS ; POSITRON COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY ; Radiology ; RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE ; RADIOWAVE RADIATION ; REGRESSION ANALYSIS ; Retrospective Studies ; SAFETY ; Treatment Outcome ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2016-10, Vol.39 (10), p.1438-1446</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2016</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media New York and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c531t-af0b949ff154d839adbca5d47c61bd07892ba708249146d799e4af169363c3e33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c531t-af0b949ff154d839adbca5d47c61bd07892ba708249146d799e4af169363c3e33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27923,27924</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27387188$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/22645407$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>van Tilborg, Aukje A. J. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scheffer, Hester J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Jong, Marcus C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vroomen, Laurien G. P. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nielsen, Karin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Kuijk, Cornelis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van den Tol, Petrousjka M. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meijerink, Martijn R.</creatorcontrib><title>MWA Versus RFA for Perivascular and Peribiliary CRLM: A Retrospective Patient- and Lesion-Based Analysis of Two Historical Cohorts</title><title>Cardiovascular and interventional radiology</title><addtitle>Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol</addtitle><description>Purpose To retrospectively analyse the safety and efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus microwave ablation (MWA) in the treatment of unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) in proximity to large vessels and/or major bile ducts. Method and Materials A database search was performed to include patients with unresectable histologically proven and/or 18 F–FDG–PET avid CRLM who were treated with RFA or MWA between January 2001 and September 2014 in a single centre. All lesions that were considered to have a peribiliary and/or perivascular location were included. Univariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the distribution of patient, tumour and procedure characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression was used to correct for potential confounders. Results Two hundred and forty-three patients with 774 unresectable CRLM were ablated. One hundred and twenty-two patients (78 males; 44 females) had at least one perivascular or peribiliary lesion ( n  = 199). Primary efficacy rate of RFA was superior to MWA after 3 and 12 months of follow-up ( P  = 0.010 and P  = 0.022); however, after multivariate analysis this difference was non-significant at 12 months ( P  = 0.078) and vanished after repeat ablations ( P  = 0.39). More CTCAE grade III complications occurred after MWA versus RFA (18.8 vs. 7.9 %; P  = 0.094); biliary complications were especially common after peribiliary MWA ( P  = 0.002). Conclusion For perivascular CRLM, RFA and MWA are both safe treatment options that appear equally effective. For peribiliary CRLM, MWA has a higher complication rate than RFA, with similar efficacy. Based on these results, it is advised to use RFA for lesions in the proximity of major bile ducts.</description><subject>ABLATION</subject><subject>Ablation Techniques - methods</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>BILE</subject><subject>Bile Ducts - pathology</subject><subject>Bile Ducts - surgery</subject><subject>BILIARY TRACT</subject><subject>Cardiology</subject><subject>Catheter Ablation - methods</subject><subject>Clinical Investigation</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>FLUORINE 18</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>LIVER</subject><subject>Liver Neoplasms - secondary</subject><subject>Liver Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>METASTASES</subject><subject>MICROWAVE RADIATION</subject><subject>Microwaves - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS</subject><subject>NEOPLASMS</subject><subject>Nuclear Medicine</subject><subject>PATIENTS</subject><subject>POSITRON COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE</subject><subject>RADIOWAVE RADIATION</subject><subject>REGRESSION ANALYSIS</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>SAFETY</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>0174-1551</issn><issn>1432-086X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkktv1DAUhSMEokPhB7BBltiwCfj6EccskMKIUqSpqEblsbMcx-m4ysRTO5mq2_5yPJMylAUSK0u-n8-99_hk2UvAbwFj8S5iTATOMRQ5MKA5fZTNgFGS47L4-TibYRAsB87hKHsW4xXGwEvCn2ZHRNBSQFnOsruzHxX6bkMcI1qeVKj1AZ3b4LY6mrHTAem-2V_UrnM63KL5cnH2HlVoaYfg48aawW0tOteDs_2Q7_GFjc73-UcdbYOqXne30UXkW3Rx49Gpi4MPzugOzf3KhyE-z560uov2xf15nH07-XQxP80XXz9_mVeL3HAKQ65bXEsm2xY4a0oqdVMbzRsmTAF1g0UpSa0FLgmTwIpGSGmZbqGQtKCGWkqPsw-T7mas17Yxad6gO7UJbp0WU1479Xeldyt16beKYyyBiyTwehLwcXAqGjdYszK-75MJipCCcYZ31Jv7NsFfjzYOau2isV2ne-vHqKAkaVbglP0HCkVBQRD8p_cBvfJjSN7uKS4JFUwmCibKpL-JwbaH7QCrXWTUFBmVIqN2kVE7W149tOXw4ndGEkAmIKZSf2nDg9b_VP0Ft6fK8A</recordid><startdate>20161001</startdate><enddate>20161001</enddate><creator>van Tilborg, Aukje A. J. M.</creator><creator>Scheffer, Hester J.</creator><creator>de Jong, Marcus C.</creator><creator>Vroomen, Laurien G. P. H.</creator><creator>Nielsen, Karin</creator><creator>van Kuijk, Cornelis</creator><creator>van den Tol, Petrousjka M. P.</creator><creator>Meijerink, Martijn R.</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>OTOTI</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20161001</creationdate><title>MWA Versus RFA for Perivascular and Peribiliary CRLM: A Retrospective Patient- and Lesion-Based Analysis of Two Historical Cohorts</title><author>van Tilborg, Aukje A. J. M. ; Scheffer, Hester J. ; de Jong, Marcus C. ; Vroomen, Laurien G. P. H. ; Nielsen, Karin ; van Kuijk, Cornelis ; van den Tol, Petrousjka M. P. ; Meijerink, Martijn R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c531t-af0b949ff154d839adbca5d47c61bd07892ba708249146d799e4af169363c3e33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>ABLATION</topic><topic>Ablation Techniques - methods</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>BILE</topic><topic>Bile Ducts - pathology</topic><topic>Bile Ducts - surgery</topic><topic>BILIARY TRACT</topic><topic>Cardiology</topic><topic>Catheter Ablation - methods</topic><topic>Clinical Investigation</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>FLUORINE 18</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>LIVER</topic><topic>Liver Neoplasms - secondary</topic><topic>Liver Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>METASTASES</topic><topic>MICROWAVE RADIATION</topic><topic>Microwaves - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS</topic><topic>NEOPLASMS</topic><topic>Nuclear Medicine</topic><topic>PATIENTS</topic><topic>POSITRON COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE</topic><topic>RADIOWAVE RADIATION</topic><topic>REGRESSION ANALYSIS</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>SAFETY</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>van Tilborg, Aukje A. J. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scheffer, Hester J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Jong, Marcus C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vroomen, Laurien G. P. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nielsen, Karin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Kuijk, Cornelis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van den Tol, Petrousjka M. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meijerink, Martijn R.</creatorcontrib><collection>SpringerOpen</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Databases</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Cardiovascular and interventional radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>van Tilborg, Aukje A. J. M.</au><au>Scheffer, Hester J.</au><au>de Jong, Marcus C.</au><au>Vroomen, Laurien G. P. H.</au><au>Nielsen, Karin</au><au>van Kuijk, Cornelis</au><au>van den Tol, Petrousjka M. P.</au><au>Meijerink, Martijn R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>MWA Versus RFA for Perivascular and Peribiliary CRLM: A Retrospective Patient- and Lesion-Based Analysis of Two Historical Cohorts</atitle><jtitle>Cardiovascular and interventional radiology</jtitle><stitle>Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol</addtitle><date>2016-10-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1438</spage><epage>1446</epage><pages>1438-1446</pages><issn>0174-1551</issn><eissn>1432-086X</eissn><abstract>Purpose To retrospectively analyse the safety and efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus microwave ablation (MWA) in the treatment of unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) in proximity to large vessels and/or major bile ducts. Method and Materials A database search was performed to include patients with unresectable histologically proven and/or 18 F–FDG–PET avid CRLM who were treated with RFA or MWA between January 2001 and September 2014 in a single centre. All lesions that were considered to have a peribiliary and/or perivascular location were included. Univariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the distribution of patient, tumour and procedure characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression was used to correct for potential confounders. Results Two hundred and forty-three patients with 774 unresectable CRLM were ablated. One hundred and twenty-two patients (78 males; 44 females) had at least one perivascular or peribiliary lesion ( n  = 199). Primary efficacy rate of RFA was superior to MWA after 3 and 12 months of follow-up ( P  = 0.010 and P  = 0.022); however, after multivariate analysis this difference was non-significant at 12 months ( P  = 0.078) and vanished after repeat ablations ( P  = 0.39). More CTCAE grade III complications occurred after MWA versus RFA (18.8 vs. 7.9 %; P  = 0.094); biliary complications were especially common after peribiliary MWA ( P  = 0.002). Conclusion For perivascular CRLM, RFA and MWA are both safe treatment options that appear equally effective. For peribiliary CRLM, MWA has a higher complication rate than RFA, with similar efficacy. Based on these results, it is advised to use RFA for lesions in the proximity of major bile ducts.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>27387188</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00270-016-1413-3</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0174-1551
ispartof Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2016-10, Vol.39 (10), p.1438-1446
issn 0174-1551
1432-086X
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5009157
source Springer Nature
subjects ABLATION
Ablation Techniques - methods
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
BILE
Bile Ducts - pathology
Bile Ducts - surgery
BILIARY TRACT
Cardiology
Catheter Ablation - methods
Clinical Investigation
Cohort Studies
Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology
Colorectal Neoplasms - surgery
Female
FLUORINE 18
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Imaging
LIVER
Liver Neoplasms - secondary
Liver Neoplasms - surgery
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
METASTASES
MICROWAVE RADIATION
Microwaves - therapeutic use
Middle Aged
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
NEOPLASMS
Nuclear Medicine
PATIENTS
POSITRON COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY
Radiology
RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE
RADIOWAVE RADIATION
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Retrospective Studies
SAFETY
Treatment Outcome
Ultrasound
title MWA Versus RFA for Perivascular and Peribiliary CRLM: A Retrospective Patient- and Lesion-Based Analysis of Two Historical Cohorts
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T00%3A47%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=MWA%20Versus%20RFA%20for%20Perivascular%20and%20Peribiliary%20CRLM:%20A%20Retrospective%20Patient-%20and%20Lesion-Based%20Analysis%20of%20Two%20Historical%20Cohorts&rft.jtitle=Cardiovascular%20and%20interventional%20radiology&rft.au=van%20Tilborg,%20Aukje%20A.%20J.%20M.&rft.date=2016-10-01&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1438&rft.epage=1446&rft.pages=1438-1446&rft.issn=0174-1551&rft.eissn=1432-086X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00270-016-1413-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E4167894901%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c531t-af0b949ff154d839adbca5d47c61bd07892ba708249146d799e4af169363c3e33%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1815923749&rft_id=info:pmid/27387188&rfr_iscdi=true