Long-term Observation of CT-guided Radiofrequency Ablation of Lung Neoplasm in 476 Consecutive Patients by a Thoracic Surgical Service: A Single-institutional Experience

Survival after radiofrequency ablation and/or chemotherapy for lung cancer and pulmonary metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and chemotherapy are used to treat lung cancer or pulmonary metastases, but no direct comparison of overall survival (OS) has been published. The present study aimed to assess the OS of RFA and/or chemotherapy in patients with lung cancer or pulmonary metastases who were not candidates for surgical resection.

Methods

To identify relevant studies, the following databases were electronically searched from their inception to 31 March 2023: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Ovid, ScienceDirect, SinoMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Chongqing VIP Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, Wanfang Database, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Chictr.org. Manual retrieval was also conducted. We used published hazard ratios (HRs) if available or estimates from other survival data.

Results

A total of 1,387 participants from 14 trials were included in the final analysis. Patients treated with RFA combined with chemotherapy significantly improved OS compared with those treated with chemotherapy alone [HR 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41-0.61; p < 0.00001], with an absolute difference at 12 months of 29.6% (95% CI 23.7-35.5), at 24 months of 19.2% (95% CI 10.1-28.2), and at 36 months of 22.9% (95% CI 12.0-33.7). No statistically significant difference was observed in the subgroups of case type, cancer type, chemotherapy drugs, and tumor size. The HR for OS with RFA plus chemotherapy vs. RFA alone was 0.53 (95% CI 0.41-0.70; p < 0.00001), corresponding to a 27.1% (95% CI 18.3-35.8), 31.0% (95% CI 19.9-41.9), and 24.9% (95% CI 15.0-34.7) absolute difference in survival at 12 months, 24 months, and 36 months, respectively. Subgroup analysis by geographic region and TNM stage showed that RFA combined with chemotherapy still significantly improved OS compared to RFA. The HR of RFA vs. chemotherapy was 0.98 (95% CI 0.60-1.60; p = 0.94), with an absolute difference at 12 months of 1.4% (95% CI -19.2 to 22.1), at 24 months of 7.8% (95% CI -11.3 to 26.8), and at 36 months of 0.3% (95% CI -13.2 to 13.8). The overall indirect comparison of OS for RFA vs. chemotherapy was 0.95 (95% CI 0.72-1.26; p = 0.74). Data on progression-free survival were not sufficiently reported.

Conclusion

RFA combined with chemotherapy might be a better treatment option for patients with lung cancer or pulmonary metastases than chemotherapy alone or RFA alone. The comparison between RFA and/or chemotherapy remains to be specifically tested.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=335032, identifier CRD42022335032.

Multidisciplinary Treatment of Patients with Progressive Biliary Tract Cancer after First-Line Gemcitabine and Cisplatin: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Patients with unresectable biliary tract cancer (uBTC) who progress despite first-line gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) treatment have limited systemic options with a modest survival benefit. Data are lacking on the clinical effectiveness and safety of personalized treatment based on multidisciplinary discussion for patients with progressing uBTC.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center study included patients with progressive uBTC who received either best supportive care or personalized treatment based on multidisciplinary discussion, including minimally invasive, image-guided procedures (MIT); FOLFIRI; or both (MIT and FOLFIRI), between 2011 and 2021.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients with progressive uBTC were identified. Patients received best supportive care (n = 50, 52%), MIT (n = 14, 14%), FOLFIRI (n = 19, 20%), or both (n = 14, 14%). Survival after disease progression was better in patients who received MIT (8.8 months; 95% CI: 2.60-15.08), FOLFIRI (6 months; 95% CI: 3.30-8.72), or both (15.1 months; 95% CI: 3.66-26.50) than in patients receiving BSC (0.36 months; 95% CI: 0.00-1.24, p < 0.001). The most common (>10%) grade 3-5 adverse events were anemia (25%) and thrombocytopenia (11%).

CONCLUSION

Multidisciplinary discussion is critical for identifying patients with progressive uBTC who might benefit the most from MIT, FOLFIRI, or both. The safety profile was consistent with previous reports.

Ablation Therapy Combined with EGFR TKIs in the Treatment of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

Systematically evaluate the efficacy of physical ablation combined with TKI in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

We performed a comprehensive search of databases including OVID, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and three Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and Chongqing Weipu Database). The aim was to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating physical ablation as the treatment for advanced NSCLC. We also evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies and summarized the data extracted for meta-analysis with Review Manager 5.3.

Results

A total of 9 studies, including 752 patients, were evaluable. The meta-analysis results show that the complete response rate (CRR) (RR: 2.23, 95% CI: 1. 46 to 3.40, P 0.01), partial response rate (PRR) (RR: −2.25, 95% CI: 1.41 to 3.59, P 0.01), and disease control rate (DCR) (RR: −2.80, 95% CI: 1.64 to 4.80, P< 0.01) of patients with advanced NSCLC who received physical ablation combined with TKI therapy were higher than those who did not receive physical ablation therapy. The control groups from seven of the studies had a total of 606 patients with targeted therapies and chemotherapy. The complete response rate was (CRR) (RR: 2.48, 2.4895% CI: 1.55 to 2.47, P 0.01), partial response rate (PRR) (RR: −1.66, 95% CI: 1.20 to 2.31, P< 0.01), and disease control rate (DCR) (RR: −2.68, 95% CI: 1.41 to 5.06, P< 0.01) for patients with advanced NSCLC who had received physical ablation combined with targeted therapies and chemotherapy, compared to patients who had not received physical ablation therapy. This difference was statistically significant. Above all, these results showed that the clinical efficacy of physical ablation combined EGFR-TKIs therapy (regardless of whether it was combined with chemotherapy) was better than that of EGFR-TKIs therapy alone.

Conclusion

Physical ablation combined with TKI treatment in patients with advanced NSCLC can improve efficacy.