ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2022
Is microwave ablation therapy as effective as colorectal liver metastases in noncolorectal liver metastases?
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study was to evaluate the relationship between primary tumor type and the effectiveness of microwave ablation (MWA) therapy by comparing the technical and clinical outcomes of MWA in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) and noncolorectal liver metastases (NCLM).
methodsBetween January 2019 and March 2021, 47 consecutive patients (25 male, 22 female) with a total of 63 unresectable hepatic metastases underwent MWA under ultrasound guidance. The patients were divided into CLM (n = 29) and NCLM (n = 18) groups. Patient demographics, procedural details, and complications were noted. The overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were also analyzed.
resultsTechnical success was 100% in both groups. No major complication was observed. Three minor complications [fatigue (n = 2) and subcutaneous hematoma (n = 1)] were encountered. DFS rates were 88.9%, 71.9%, 64.9%, and 44.0% at 3, 6, 12, and 24-months, respectively, with a mean DFS of 17.4 months (95% CI: 15.1, 19.7). Also, OS rates were 93.7%, 90.0%, 76.8%, and 64.3%, at 3, 6, 12, and 24-months, respectively, with a mean OS of 18.5 months (95% CI: 16.2, 20.7). There was no significant difference in recurrence between the CLM and NCLM groups (p = 0.452). The recurrence rate in liver metastases > 3 cm in size was significantly higher than in metastases ≤ 3 cm in size (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: MWA therapy is as effective in the NCLM group as in the CLM group, regardless of histologic type. Metastasis size (>3 cm) was correlated with the recurrence rate in the CLM and NCLM groups.
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.