Korean journal of radiology · 2021
Comparison of Thermal Ablation and Surgery for Low-Risk Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Kim Hyun Jin, Cho Se Jin, Baek Jung Hwan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Although thermal ablation is effective in treating low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinomas (PTMCs), comparison of treatment outcomes between thermal ablation and surgery has not yet been systematically evaluated. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of thermal ablation and surgery for the treatment of low-risk PTMCs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for studies reporting comparisons of treatment results between thermal ablation and surgery for patients with low-risk PTMC published up to April 6, 2020. The analysis evaluated the efficacy (local tumor recurrence, occurrence of new tumor, metastasis, and rescue surgery) and safety (complication rate) of thermal ablation and surgery.
RESULTS: This systematic review included four studies with a total of 339 PTMCs in 339 patients who underwent thermal ablation and 320 PTMCs in 314 patients who underwent surgery. There was no local tumor recurrence or distant metastasis in either group. There was no significant difference in the pooled proportion of lymph node metastasis (2.6% with thermal ablation vs. 3.3% with surgery, p = 0.65), occurrence of new tumors (1.4% with thermal ablation vs. 1.3% with surgery, p = 0.85), or rescue surgery (2.6% with thermal ablation vs. 1.6% with surgery, p = 0.62). However, the pooled complication rate was significantly higher in the surgery group than in the ablation group (3.3% with thermal ablation vs. 7.8% with surgery, p = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: Both thermal ablation and surgery are effective and safe options for the management of low-risk PTMCs, with thermal ablation achieving a lower complication rate. Therefore, thermal ablation may be considered as an alternative treatment option for low-risk PTMC in patients who refuse surgery and active surveillance or are ineligible for surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for studies reporting comparisons of treatment results between thermal ablation and surgery for patients with low-risk PTMC published up to April 6, 2020. The analysis evaluated the efficacy (local tumor recurrence, occurrence of new tumor, metastasis, and rescue surgery) and safety (complication rate) of thermal ablation and surgery.
RESULTS: This systematic review included four studies with a total of 339 PTMCs in 339 patients who underwent thermal ablation and 320 PTMCs in 314 patients who underwent surgery. There was no local tumor recurrence or distant metastasis in either group. There was no significant difference in the pooled proportion of lymph node metastasis (2.6% with thermal ablation vs. 3.3% with surgery, p = 0.65), occurrence of new tumors (1.4% with thermal ablation vs. 1.3% with surgery, p = 0.85), or rescue surgery (2.6% with thermal ablation vs. 1.6% with surgery, p = 0.62). However, the pooled complication rate was significantly higher in the surgery group than in the ablation group (3.3% with thermal ablation vs. 7.8% with surgery, p = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: Both thermal ablation and surgery are effective and safe options for the management of low-risk PTMCs, with thermal ablation achieving a lower complication rate. Therefore, thermal ablation may be considered as an alternative treatment option for low-risk PTMC in patients who refuse surgery and active surveillance or are ineligible for surgery.