IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0045493.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Radiofrequency Ablation versus Resection for Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: A Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Mingzhe Weng
  • Yong Zhang
  • Di Zhou
  • Yong Yang
  • Zhaohui Tang
  • Mingning Zhao
  • Zhiwei Quan
  • Wei Gong

Abstract

Background: No randomized controlled trial (RCT) has yet been performed to provide the evidence to clarify the therapeutic debate on liver resection (LR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in treating colorectal liver metastases (CLM). The meta-analysis was performed to summarize the evidence mostly from retrospective clinical trials and to investigate the effect of LR and RFA. Methodology/Principal Findings: Systematic literature search of clinical studies was carried out to compare RFA and LR for CLM in Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library Central databases. The meta-analysis was performed using risk ratio (RR) and random effect model, in which 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for RR were calculated. Primary outcomes were the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 3 and 5 years plus mortality and morbidity. 1 prospective study and 12 retrospective studies were finally eligible for meta-analysis. LR was significantly superior to RFA in 3 -year OS (RR 1.377, 95% CI: 1.246–1.522); 5-year OS (RR: 1.474, 95%CI: 1.284–1.692); 3-year DFS (RR 1.735, 95% CI: 1.483–2.029) and 5-year DFS (RR 2.227, 95% CI: 1.823–2.720). The postoperative morbidity was higher in LR (RR: 2.495, 95% CI: 1.881–3.308), but no significant difference was found in mortality between LR and RFA. The data from the 3 subgroups (tumor

Suggested Citation

  • Mingzhe Weng & Yong Zhang & Di Zhou & Yong Yang & Zhaohui Tang & Mingning Zhao & Zhiwei Quan & Wei Gong, 2012. "Radiofrequency Ablation versus Resection for Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-8, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0045493
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045493
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045493
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045493&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0045493?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0045493. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.