scholarly journals Radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for breast cancer liver metastasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (11) ◽  
pp. 829-843 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi-bin Xiao ◽  
Bo Zhang ◽  
Yu-lian Wu
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Rivera ◽  
Dhiresh Rohan Jeyarajah ◽  
Kimberly Washington

BackgroundThe liver is the second most common site of breast cancer metastasis. Liver directed therapies including hepatic resection, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), transarterial chemo- and radioembolization (TACE/TARE), and hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) have been scarcely researched for breast cancer liver metastasis (BCLM). The purpose of this review is to present the known body of literature on these therapies for BCLM.MethodsA systematic review was performed with pre-specified search terms using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Review resulting in 9,957 results. After review of abstracts and application of exclusion criteria, 51 studies were included in this review.ResultsHepatic resection afforded the longest median overall survival (mOS) and 5-year survival (45 mo, 41%) across 23 studies. RFA was presented in six studies with pooled mOS and 5-year survival of 38 mo and 11–33%. Disease burden and tumor size was lower amongst hepatic resection and RFA patients. TACE was presented in eight studies with pooled mOS and 1-year survival of 19.6 mo and 32–88.8%. TARE was presented in 10 studies with pooled mOS and 1-year survival of 11.5 mo and 34.5–86%. TACE and TARE populations were selected for chemo-resistant, unresectable disease. Hepatic arterial infusion was presented in five studies with pooled mOS of 11.3 months.ConclusionAlthough further studies are necessary to delineate appropriate usage of liver directed therapies in BCLM, small studies suggest hepatic resection and RFA, in well selected patients, can result in prolonged survival. Longitudinal studies with larger cohorts are warranted to further investigate the effectiveness of each modality.


HPB ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. S639
Author(s):  
K. Kobryń ◽  
E. Kobryń ◽  
K. Kobryń ◽  
M. Nowosad ◽  
W. Patkowski ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. 3771-3778 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akihisa Matsuda ◽  
Masao Miyashita ◽  
Satoshi Matsumoto ◽  
Takeshi Matsutani ◽  
Nobuyuki Sakurazawa ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 264 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eran Sadot ◽  
Ser Yee Lee ◽  
Constantinos T. Sofocleous ◽  
Stephen B. Solomon ◽  
Mithat Gönen ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 3449
Author(s):  
Rajeev Adhikari ◽  
Tianfu Wen ◽  
Parvani Shrestha ◽  
Pooja Adhikari

There are more literatures on the comparison of the outcome of small HCC between HR and RFA, but rare is about the comparison of the outcome between small solitary HCC and small oligonodular HCC meeting Milan criteria by HR or by RFA. Thus, the aim of the present study is to evaluate the outcome between small solitary HCC and small oligonodular HCC meeting Milan criteria treated by HR or by RFA. Total eighteen studies including 4,823 patients was included in this study. Among them LR group included 2,564 cases, and RFA group included 2,259 cases. We divided them into small solitary HCC sub-group and small oligonodular HCC sub-group and compared the survival difference between them. In the HR group, 1, 3, and 5 years OS of the small solitary HCC sub-group were 93.9%, 81.3%, and 72.0%, and the small oligonodular HCC sub-group were 83.3%, 70.4%, and 45.4%, respectively. For the DFS in the HR group, 1, 3, and 5 years of the small solitary HCC sub-group were 76.4%, 56.0%, and 44.0%, and 65.9%, 40.7%, and 11.1% of the small oligonodular HCC sub-group, respectively. In the RFA group, 1, 3, and 5 years OS of the small solitary HCC sub-group were 91.2%, 74.1%, and 54.5%, and the small oligonodular HCC sub-group were 82.0%, 55.4%, and 38.2%, respectively. For the DFS in the RFA group, 1, 3, and 5years of the small solitary HCC sub-group were 74.1%, 49.8%, and 22.1%, and 62.6% and 37.3%, 8.2% of the small oligonodular HCC sub-group, respectively.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document