4.4 Article

Five-year survival following radiofrequency ablation of small, solitary, hepatic colorectal metastases

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2008.01.016

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: Radiofrequency (RF) ablation is an increasingly accepted treatment for nonsurgical candidates with a limited number of colorectal. hepatic metastases. RF ablation is most effective in tumors smaller than 4.0 cm. This report describes 5-year survival in patients with single tumors with a maximum diameter of 4 cm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty of 291 patients (14%; 24 men, 16 women; mean age, 67 years; age range, 34-86 y) with no or treated extrahepatic disease were identified who were not candidates for resection and who had a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Sixteen had undergone hepatic resection and two had undergone lung resection and lung ablation. Thirty-two (80%) received chemotherapy. Thirty-five were treated under general anesthesia and five under conscious sedation. Our standard ablation protocol used internally water-cooled electrodes introduced percutaneously with ultrasonography and computed tomography guidance and monitoring. Follow-up data were obtained from primary care physicians or oncologists. RESULTS: Mean tumor diameter was 2.3 cm (range, 0.8-4.0 cm). There were two successfully treated systemic complications: a chest infection and an exacerbation of asthma. There were no local complications. Mean follow-up was 38 months (range, 6-132 months). The median survival duration and 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 59 months and 97%, 84%, 40%, respectively, after ablation; and 63 months, 100%, 88%, and 54%, respectively, from the diagnosis of liver metastases. History of liver resection did not impact survival. CONCLUSIONS: RF ablation of solitary liver metastases 4 cm or smaller can be performed with minimal morbidity and results in excellent long-term survival, approaching that of surgical resection, even in patients who are not surgical candidates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据