Comparison study of computed tomography-guided radiofrequency and microwave ablation for pulmonary tumors: A retrospective, case-controlled observational study.

Abstract

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the safety, efficacy, and prognostic value of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) for lung tumors.MethodsBetween March 2012 and January 2018, 238 patients with lung cancer were treated with MWA (139, 58.4%) or RFA (99, 41.6%) in our center. Patient and tumor characteristics, complications, complete ablation (CA) rate, and prognosis were compared between the groups. Meta‐analysis was used to systematically compare the outcomes of RFA and MWA for the treatment of lung tumors.ResultsAblation was successfully completed in all patients and no procedure‐related death occurred. The total complication rates in the RFA and MWA groups were 24.2% (24/99) and 16.5% (23/139), respectively, and there was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.142). The initial and total CA rates were similar at P > 0.05 (RFA vs. MWA: initial CA, 97.0% vs. 96.4%; total CA, 99.0% vs. 98.6%, respectively). During follow‐up, there was no significant difference in median progression‐free (RFA vs. MWA: 12.5 months, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.002–19.998 vs. 9.5 months, 95% CI 6.623–12.377; P = 0.673) or overall survival (RFA vs. MWA: 33 months, 95% CI 27.070–38.930 vs. 30 months, 95% CI, 18.482–41.518; P = 0.410) between the groups. Combined with the results of published comparison studies, meta‐analysis further confirmed that the outcomes of these two treatments were similar.ConclusionBoth RFA and MWA are safe and effective treatments with a survival benefit for selected patients with primary and metastatic lung tumors.