Comparative efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation and microwave ablation in benign thyroid nodule treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING European Radiology Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-24 DOI:10.1007/s00330-024-10881-7
Hunjong Lim, Se Jin Cho, Jung Hwan Baek
{"title":"Comparative efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation and microwave ablation in benign thyroid nodule treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Hunjong Lim, Se Jin Cho, Jung Hwan Baek","doi":"10.1007/s00330-024-10881-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Ultrasound-guided thermal ablation, including radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA), has become one of the main options for treating benign thyroid nodules (BTNs). To assess the efficacy of thermal ablation of BTNs, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant studies.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases was performed up to September 25, 2023, to identify studies directly comparing RFA and MWA for pathologically proven BTNs and reporting clinical outcomes and complications. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently performed by two radiologists according to PRISMA guidelines. The analysis yielded the serial volume reduction ratios (VRRs) of ablated nodules for up to 12 months, symptom and cosmetic scores, and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This analysis included nine studies with 1305 BTNs treated by RFA and 1276 by MWA. VRRs at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months were similar between RFA and MWA, but RFA showed a significantly higher VRR (83.3%) than MWA (76.9%) at 12 months (p = 0.02). Complication rates showed no significant difference between the two methods. Symptom and cosmetic scores significantly decreased after ablation, without a significant difference between the methods. Subgroup analysis indicated a significantly higher VRR at 12 months for RFA than for MWA for less experienced investigators (≤ 10 years), but no significant difference for more experienced investigators (> 10 years).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RFA and MWA are both effective and safe methods for treating BTNs. RFA showed a higher VRR at 12 months and seems more suitable for less experienced investigators.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance statement: </strong>RFA and MWA are both effective and safe treatments for BTNs, with RFA showing a higher VRR at 12 months. Both methods offer minimally invasive and reliable treatment for thyroid nodules.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>The most effective thermal ablation technique for BTNs remains undetermined. RFA showed a higher VRR at 12 months than MWA. Both techniques are effective for treating thyroid nodules; RFA offers greater benefits, particularly for less experienced investigators.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"612-623"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-10881-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Ultrasound-guided thermal ablation, including radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA), has become one of the main options for treating benign thyroid nodules (BTNs). To assess the efficacy of thermal ablation of BTNs, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant studies.

Materials and methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases was performed up to September 25, 2023, to identify studies directly comparing RFA and MWA for pathologically proven BTNs and reporting clinical outcomes and complications. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently performed by two radiologists according to PRISMA guidelines. The analysis yielded the serial volume reduction ratios (VRRs) of ablated nodules for up to 12 months, symptom and cosmetic scores, and complications.

Results: This analysis included nine studies with 1305 BTNs treated by RFA and 1276 by MWA. VRRs at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months were similar between RFA and MWA, but RFA showed a significantly higher VRR (83.3%) than MWA (76.9%) at 12 months (p = 0.02). Complication rates showed no significant difference between the two methods. Symptom and cosmetic scores significantly decreased after ablation, without a significant difference between the methods. Subgroup analysis indicated a significantly higher VRR at 12 months for RFA than for MWA for less experienced investigators (≤ 10 years), but no significant difference for more experienced investigators (> 10 years).

Conclusion: RFA and MWA are both effective and safe methods for treating BTNs. RFA showed a higher VRR at 12 months and seems more suitable for less experienced investigators.

Clinical relevance statement: RFA and MWA are both effective and safe treatments for BTNs, with RFA showing a higher VRR at 12 months. Both methods offer minimally invasive and reliable treatment for thyroid nodules.

Key points: The most effective thermal ablation technique for BTNs remains undetermined. RFA showed a higher VRR at 12 months than MWA. Both techniques are effective for treating thyroid nodules; RFA offers greater benefits, particularly for less experienced investigators.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
射频消融和微波消融治疗甲状腺良性结节的疗效和安全性比较:系统综述和荟萃分析。
目的:超声引导下的热消融,包括射频消融(RFA)和微波消融(MWA),已成为治疗甲状腺良性结节(BTNs)的主要选择之一。为了评估热消融治疗良性甲状腺结节的疗效,我们对相关研究进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析:对截至 2023 年 9 月 25 日的 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 COCHRANE 数据库进行了全面检索,以确定对病理证实的 BTNs 直接比较 RFA 和 MWA 并报告临床结果和并发症的研究。数据提取和质量评估由两名放射科医生根据 PRISMA 指南独立完成。分析结果显示了长达12个月的连续消融结节体积缩小率(VRR)、症状和外观评分以及并发症:该分析包括九项研究,其中有 1305 个 BTN 采用 RFA 治疗,1276 个采用 MWA 治疗。RFA和MWA在1个月、3个月和6个月时的VRR相似,但RFA在12个月时的VRR(83.3%)明显高于MWA(76.9%)(p = 0.02)。两种方法的并发症发生率无明显差异。消融术后症状和外观评分明显下降,但两种方法之间无明显差异。亚组分析表明,对于经验较少的研究者(≤ 10 年),RFA 在 12 个月时的 VRR 明显高于 MWA,但对于经验较多的研究者(> 10 年),两者无明显差异:结论:RFA 和 MWA 都是治疗 BTN 有效且安全的方法。结论:RFA 和 MWA 都是治疗 BTN 的有效且安全的方法,RFA 在 12 个月时的 VRR 较高,似乎更适合经验较少的研究者:RFA和MWA都是治疗BTN的有效且安全的方法,其中RFA在12个月后的VRR更高。两种方法都能为甲状腺结节提供微创、可靠的治疗:要点:治疗BTNs最有效的热消融技术仍未确定。RFA在12个月后的VRR高于MWA。两种技术都能有效治疗甲状腺结节;RFA的优势更大,尤其是对于经验不足的研究人员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Radiology
European Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
874
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field. This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies. From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
期刊最新文献
Deep learning-based breast cancer diagnosis in breast MRI: systematic review and meta-analysis. An international survey of diffusion and perfusion magnetic resonance imaging implementation in the head and neck. Age-stratified deep learning model for thyroid tumor classification: a multicenter diagnostic study. High-resolution deep learning reconstruction for coronary CTA: compared efficacy of stenosis evaluation with other methods at in vitro and in vivo studies. Lower extremity MRI: are their requests always appropriate in France?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1