Spanish
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery 2012-Aug

Is radiofrequency ablation more effective than stereotactic ablative radiotherapy in patients with early stage medically inoperable non-small cell lung cancer?

Solo los usuarios registrados pueden traducir artículos
Iniciar sesión Registrarse
El enlace se guarda en el portapapeles.
Haris Bilal
Sarah Mahmood
Bala Rajashanker
Rajesh Shah

Palabras clave

Abstracto

A best evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'is radiofrequency ablation more effective than stereotactic ablative radiotherapy in patients with early stage medically inoperable non-small cell lung cancer?' Altogether, over 219 papers were found, of which 16 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) offer a clear survival benefit compared with conventional radiotherapy in the treatment of early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in medically inoperable patients. Overall survival at 1 year (68.2-95% vs. 81-85.7%) and 3 years (36-87.5% vs. 42.7-56%) was similar between patients treated with RFA and SABR. However, 5-year survival was higher in SABR (47%) than RFA (20.1-27%). Local progression rates were lower in patients treated with SABR (3.5-14.5% vs. 23.7-43%). Both treatments were associated with complications. Pneumothorax (19.1-63%) was the most common complication following RFA. Fatigue (31-32.6%), pneumonitis (2.1-12.5%) and chest wall pain (3.1-12%) were common following SABR. Although tumours ≤ 5 cm in size can be effectively treated with RFA, results are better for tumours ≤ 3 cm. One study documented increased recurrence rates with larger tumours and advanced disease stage following RFA. Another study found increasing age, tumour size, previous systemic chemotherapy, previous external beam radiotherapy and emphysema increased the risk of toxicity following SABR and suggested that risk factors should be used to stratify patients. RFA can be performed in one session, whereas SABR is more effective if larger doses of radiation are given over two to three fractions. RFA is not recommended for centrally based tumours. Patients with small apical tumours, posteriorly positioned tumours, peripheral tumours and tumours close to the scapula where it may be difficult to position an active electrode are more optimally treated with SABR. Treatment for early stage inoperable NSCLC should be tailored to individual patients, and under certain circumstances, a combined approach may be beneficial.

Únete a nuestra
página de facebook

La base de datos de hierbas medicinales más completa respaldada por la ciencia

  • Funciona en 55 idiomas
  • Curas a base de hierbas respaldadas por la ciencia
  • Reconocimiento de hierbas por imagen
  • Mapa GPS interactivo: etiquete hierbas en la ubicación (próximamente)
  • Leer publicaciones científicas relacionadas con su búsqueda
  • Buscar hierbas medicinales por sus efectos.
  • Organice sus intereses y manténgase al día con las noticias de investigación, ensayos clínicos y patentes.

Escriba un síntoma o una enfermedad y lea acerca de las hierbas que podrían ayudar, escriba una hierba y vea las enfermedades y los síntomas contra los que se usa.
* Toda la información se basa en investigaciones científicas publicadas.

Google Play badgeApp Store badge