4.4 Article

Long-term results of radiofrequency ablation for unresectable colorectal liver metastases: a potentially curative intervention

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
卷 84, 期 1002, 页码 556-565

出版社

BRITISH INST RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/78268814

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The long-term results and prognostic factors of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) in a single centre with >10 years of experience were retrospectively analysed. Methods: A total of 100 patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) (size 0.2-8.3 cm; mean 2.4 cm) underwent a total of 126 RFA sessions (237 lesions). The mean follow-up time was 29 months (range 6-93 months). Lesion characteristics (size, number and location), procedure characteristics (percutaneous or intra-operative approach) and major and minor complications were carefully noted. Local control, mean survival time and recurrence-free and overall survival were statistically analysed. Results: No direct procedure-related deaths were observed. Major complications were present in eight patients. Local RFA site recurrence was 12.7% (n=30/237); for tumour diameters of <3 cm, 3-5 cm and >5 cm, recurrence was 5.6% (n=8/143), 19.5% (n=15/77) and 41.2% (n=7/17), respectively. Centrally located lesions recurred more often than peripheral ones, at 21.4% (n=21/98) vs 6.5% (n=9/139), respectively, p=0.009. Including additional treatments for recurring lesions when feasible, lesion-based local control reached 93%. The mean survival time from RFA was 56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 45-67) months. Overall 1-, 3-, 5- and 8-year survival from RFA was 93%, 77%, 36% and 24%, respectively. Conclusions: RFA for unresectable CRLM is a safe, effective and potentially curative treatment option; the long-term results are comparable with those of previous investigations employing surgical resection. Factors determining success are lesion size, the number of lesions and location.

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