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

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the safety, efficacy, and prognostic value of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) for lung tumors. METHODS: Between 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. RESULTS: Ablation 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. CONCLUSION: Both RFA and MWA are safe and effective treatments with a survival benefit for selected patients with primary and metastatic lung tumors.