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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Cardiovascular and interventional radiology 2016-10, Vol.39 (10), p.1438-1446 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & 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 |