ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2016
MWA Versus RFA for Perivascular and Peribiliary CRLM: A Retrospective Patient- and Lesion-Based Analysis of Two Historical Cohorts.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy of microwave ablation and radiofrequency ablation for treating metastatic liver cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Microwave Ablation, Radiofrequency Ablation, Irreversible Electroporation, and Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy for Intermediate Size (3-5 cm) Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Current oncology reports · 2022Pooled it
- Radiofrequency and Microwave Ablation Compared to Systemic Chemotherapy and to Partial Hepatectomy in the Treatment of Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2018Pooled it
- Microwave versus radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of liver malignancies: a randomized controlled phase 2 trial.Scientific reports · 2022Trial
- Thermal Ablation for Colorectal Liver Metastases: Current Evidence and Future Horizons.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Stereotactic two-needle irreversible electroporation of liver tumors near critical structures: a proof-of-concept study.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Hepatectomy outperforms microwave ablation for colorectal cancer liver metastases, with anatomical location affecting ablation outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Repeat ablation and single-session ablation in patients with multiple colorectal cancer liver metastases after chemotherapy failure.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Radiofrequency ablation for peribiliary hepatocellular carcinoma: propensity score matching analysis.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Development and management of iatrogenic biloma post microwave ablation of solitary metastatic breast cancer lesion in the liver.Radiology case reports · 2025Article
- Interventional oncology and immunotherapy: current status and future perspectives.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Microwave ablation for colorectal liver metastases with ultrasound fusion imaging assistance: a stratified analysis study based on tumor size and location.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Mathematical 3D Liver Model for Surgical versus Ablative Therapy Treatment Planning for Colorectal Liver Metastases: Recommendations from the COLLISION and COLDFIRE Trial Expert Panels.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2024Article
- Radiofrequency ablation versus microwave ablation for colorectal liver metastases: long-term results of a retrospective cohort surgical experience.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2024Article
- Advancements in the Management of Synchronous Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Comprehensive Review of Surgical, Systemic, and Local Treatment Modalities.Current oncology reports · 2024Review
- Article
- Unresectable Intermediate-Size (3-5 cm) Colorectal Liver Metastases: Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy Versus Microwave Ablation (COLLISION-XL): Protocol of a Phase II/III Multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2023Article
- Percutanous Electrochemotherapy (ECT) in Primary and Secondary Liver Malignancies: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Literature Review of Viable Surgical Options with a Special Focus on Microwave Liver Thermal Ablation and Mini-Invasive Approach.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo retrospectively analyse the safety and efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus microwave ablation (MWA) in the treatment of unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) in proximity to large vessels and/or major bile ducts. METHOD AND MATERIALS: A database search was performed to include patients with unresectable histologically proven and/or (18)F-FDG-PET avid CRLM who were treated with RFA or MWA between January 2001 and September 2014 in a single centre. All lesions that were considered to have a peribiliary and/or perivascular location were included. Univariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the distribution of patient, tumour and procedure characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression was used to correct for potential confounders.
resultsTwo hundred and forty-three patients with 774 unresectable CRLM were ablated. One hundred and twenty-two patients (78 males; 44 females) had at least one perivascular or peribiliary lesion (n = 199). Primary efficacy rate of RFA was superior to MWA after 3 and 12 months of follow-up (P = 0.010 and P = 0.022); however, after multivariate analysis this difference was non-significant at 12 months (P = 0.078) and vanished after repeat ablations (P = 0.39). More CTCAE grade III complications occurred after MWA versus RFA (18.8 vs. 7.9 %; P = 0.094); biliary complications were especially common after peribiliary MWA (P = 0.002).
conclusionFor perivascular CRLM, RFA and MWA are both safe treatment options that appear equally effective. For peribiliary CRLM, MWA has a higher complication rate than RFA, with similar efficacy. Based on these results, it is advised to use RFA for lesions in the proximity of major bile ducts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.