Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2020
Endoscopic radiofrequency ablation plus plastic stent placement versus stent placement alone for unresectable extrahepatic biliary cancer: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
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
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: 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).
METHODS: 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).
RESULTS: 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).
CONCLUSIONS: 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.).
METHODS: 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).
RESULTS: 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).
CONCLUSIONS: 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.).