A Comparison of Microwave Ablation and Cryoablation for the Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing microwave ablation (MWA) and cryoablation for renal cell carcinoma (RCC).MethodsThe systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Studies published in English from January 2006 to February 2022 that assessed adults with primary RCC who received MWA or cryoablation were included. Study arms from RCTs, comparative observational, and single-arm studies were eligible. The outcomes included local tumor recurrence (LTR), overall survival, disease-free survival, overall/major complications, procedure/ablation time, 1- to 3-month primary technique efficacy, and technical success. Single-arm meta-analyses were performed using the random effects model. Sensitivity analyses excluding low-quality studies assessed using the MINORs scale were performed. Univariable and multivariable examined the effects of prognostic factors.ResultsBaseline characteristics were similar between groups and mean tumor size for MWA and cryoablation were 2.74 and 2.69 cm. Single-arm meta-analyses were similar for LTR and secondary outcomes between cryoablation and MWA. Ablation time was significantly shorter with MWA than with cryoablation (meta-regression weighted mean difference 24.55 minutes, 95% confidence interval − 31.71, − 17.38, P < .0001). One-year LTR was significantly lower with MWA than cryoablation (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.10-0.93, P = .04). There were no significant differences for other outcomes.ConclusionMWA provides significantly improved 1-year LTR and ablation time compared with cryoablation for patients with RCC. Other outcomes appeared similar or favorable for MWA; however, results were not statistically significant. MWA of primary RCC is as safe and effective as cryoablation, which should be confirmed with future comparative studies. To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing microwave ablation (MWA) and cryoablation for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Studies published in English from January 2006 to February 2022 that assessed adults with primary RCC who received MWA or cryoablation were included. Study arms from RCTs, comparative observational, and single-arm studies were eligible. The outcomes included local tumor recurrence (LTR), overall survival, disease-free survival, overall/major complications, procedure/ablation time, 1- to 3-month primary technique efficacy, and technical success. Single-arm meta-analyses were performed using the random effects model. Sensitivity analyses excluding low-quality studies assessed using the MINORs scale were performed. Univariable and multivariable examined the effects of prognostic factors. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups and mean tumor size for MWA and cryoablation were 2.74 and 2.69 cm. Single-arm meta-analyses were similar for LTR and secondary outcomes between cryoablation and MWA. Ablation time was significantly shorter with MWA than with cryoablation (meta-regression weighted mean difference 24.55 minutes, 95% confidence interval − 31.71, − 17.38, P < .0001). One-year LTR was significantly lower with MWA than cryoablation (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.10-0.93, P = .04). There were no significant differences for other outcomes. MWA provides significantly improved 1-year LTR and ablation time compared with cryoablation for patients with RCC. Other outcomes appeared similar or favorable for MWA; however, results were not statistically significant. MWA of primary RCC is as safe and effective as cryoablation, which should be confirmed with future comparative studies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».