-
European Radiology Aug 2019The aim of the present study is to analyze preclinical and clinical data on the performance of the currently US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved microwave... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the present study is to analyze preclinical and clinical data on the performance of the currently US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved microwave ablation (MWA) systems.
METHODS
A review of the literature, published between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2016, on seven FDA-approved MWA systems, was conducted. Ratio of ablation zone volume to applied energy R(AZ:E) and sphericity indices were calculated for ex vivo and in vivo experiments.
RESULTS
Thirty-four studies with ex vivo, in vivo, and clinical data were summarized. In total, 14 studies reporting data on ablation zone volume and applied energy were included for comparison R(AZ:E). A significant correlation between volume and energy was found for the ex vivo experiments (r = 0.85, p < 0.001) in contrast to the in vivo experiments (r = 0.54, p = 0.27).
CONCLUSION
Manufacturers' algorithms on microwave ablation zone sizes are based on preclinical animal experiments with normal liver parenchyma. Clinical data reporting on ablation zone volume in relation to applied energy and sphericity index during MWA are scarce and require more adequate reporting of MWA data.
KEY POINTS
• Clinical data reporting on the ablation zone volume in relation to applied energy during microwave ablation are scarce. • Manufacturers' algorithms on microwave ablation zone sizes are based on preclinical animal experiments with normal liver parenchyma. • Preclinical data do not predict actual clinical ablation zone volumes in patients with liver tumors.
Topics: Ablation Techniques; Animals; Device Approval; Humans; Liver; Liver Neoplasms; Microwaves; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 30506218
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5842-z -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022Minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) and focal therapy (FT) are popular trends for small renal masses (SRMs). However, there is currently no systematic...
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) and focal therapy (FT) are popular trends for small renal masses (SRMs). However, there is currently no systematic comparison between MIPN and FT of SRMs. Therefore, we systematically study the perioperative, renal functional, and oncologic outcomes of MIPN and FT in SRMs.
METHODS
We have searched the Embase, Cochrane Library, and PubMed for articles between MIPN (robot-assisted partial nephrectomy and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy) and FT {radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation (MWA), cryoablation (CA), irreversible electroporation, non-thermal [irreversible electroporation (IRE)] ablation, and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)}. We calculated pooled mean difference (MD), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (CRD42021260787).
RESULTS
A total of 26 articles (n = 4,420) were included in the study. Compared with MIPN, the operating time (OP) of FT had significantly lower (SMD, -1.20; CI, -1.77 to -0.63; I = 97.6%, P < 0.0001), estimated blood loss (EBL) of FT had significantly less (SMD, -1.20; CI, -1.77 to -0.63; I = 97.6%, P < 0.0001), length of stay (LOS) had shorter (SMD, -0.90; CI, -1.26 to -0.53; I = 92.2%, P < 0.0001), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of FT was significantly lower decrease (SMD, -0.90; CI, -1.26 to -0.53; I = 92.2%, P < 0.0001). However, FT possessed lower risk in minor complications (Clavien 1-2) (OR, 0.69; CI, 0.45 to 1.07; I = 47%, P = 0.023) and overall complications (OR, 0.71; CI, 0.51 to 0.99; I = 49.2%, P = 0.008). Finally, there are no obvious difference between FT and MIPN in local recurrence, distant metastasis, and major complications (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
FT has more advantages in protecting kidney function, reducing bleeding, shortening operating time, and shortening the length of stay. There is no difference in local recurrence, distant metastasis, and major complications. For the minimally invasive era, we need to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of all aspects to make comprehensive choices.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier PROSPERO (CRD42021260787).
PubMed: 35692758
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.732714 -
Cardiovascular and Interventional... Aug 2018To assess safety and outcome of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) as compared to systemic chemotherapy and partial hepatectomy (PH) in the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Radiofrequency and Microwave Ablation Compared to Systemic Chemotherapy and to Partial Hepatectomy in the Treatment of Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
PURPOSE
To assess safety and outcome of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) as compared to systemic chemotherapy and partial hepatectomy (PH) in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched. Randomized trials and comparative observational studies with multivariate analysis and/or matching were included. Guidelines from National Guideline Clearinghouse and Guidelines International Network were assessed using the AGREE II instrument.
RESULTS
The search revealed 3530 records; 328 were selected for full-text review; 48 were included: 8 systematic reviews, 2 randomized studies, 26 comparative observational studies, 2 guideline-articles and 10 case series; in addition 13 guidelines were evaluated. Literature to assess the effectiveness of ablation was limited. RFA + systemic chemotherapy was superior to chemotherapy alone. PH was superior to RFA alone but not to RFA + PH or to MWA. Compared to PH, RFA showed fewer complications, MWA did not. Outcomes were subject to residual confounding since ablation was only employed for unresectable disease.
CONCLUSION
The results from the EORTC-CLOCC trial, the comparable survival for ablation + PH versus PH alone, the potential to induce long-term disease control and the low complication rate argue in favour of ablation over chemotherapy alone. Further randomized comparisons of ablation to current-day chemotherapy alone should therefore be considered unethical. Hence, the highest achievable level of evidence for unresectable CRLM seems reached. The apparent selection bias from previous studies and the superior safety profile mandate the setup of randomized controlled trials comparing ablation to surgery.
Topics: Ablation Techniques; Catheter Ablation; Colorectal Neoplasms; Female; Hepatectomy; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Microwaves; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29666906
DOI: 10.1007/s00270-018-1959-3 -
Abdominal Radiology (New York) Nov 2021Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is a useful tool to assess treatment response after percutaneous ablation or transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) of hepatocellular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is a useful tool to assess treatment response after percutaneous ablation or transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Here, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the usefulness of CEUS in identifying residual tumor after locoregional therapy.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane library databases were searched from their inception until March 8, 2021, for diagnostic test accuracy studies comparing CEUS to a reference standard for identifying residual tumors after locoregional therapy of HCC. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were obtained using a bivariate random effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed by stratifying the studies based on study design, type of locoregional therapy, CEUS criteria for residual tumor, timing of CEUS follow up, and type of standard reference.
RESULTS
Two reviewers independently evaluated 1479 publications. After full-text review, 142 studies were found to be relevant, and 43 publications (50 cohorts) were finally included. The overall sensitivity of CEUS in detection of residual disease estimated from the bivariate random effects model was 0.85 (95% CI 0.80-0.89). Similarly, the overall specificity was 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.96). The diagnostic accuracy was 93.5%. The DOR was 70.1 (95% CI 62.2-148), and the AUROC was 0.95. Importantly, subgroup analysis showed no apparent differences in the diagnostic performance between locoregional therapy (TACE vs. ablation) and criteria used to define residual enhancement, timing of performing CEUS, study design, or type of reference standard.
CONCLUSION
CEUS is a highly accurate method to identify HCC residual tumor after TACE or percutaneous ablation.
Topics: Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Chemoembolization, Therapeutic; Contrast Media; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 34410432
DOI: 10.1007/s00261-021-03248-9 -
Medicine Nov 2018Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) and focal therapy (FT) have both been successfully employed in the management of small renal masses. However, despite this being... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) and focal therapy (FT) have both been successfully employed in the management of small renal masses. However, despite this being the era of minimally invasive surgery, few comparative studies exist on RPN and FT. The aim of our study is to review perioperative, renal functional and oncologic outcomes of FT and RPN in cT1 renal masses.
METHODS
Literature published in Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases up to April 22, 2018, was systematically searched. We included literature comparing outcomes of FT (radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation, microwave ablation, and irreversible electroporation) and RPN. Studies that reported only on laparoscopic partial nephrectomy or open partial nephrectomy, and review articles, editorials, letters, or cost analyses were excluded. In total, data from 1166 patients were included.
RESULTS
From 858 total articles, 7 nonrandomized, observational studies were included. Compared with RPN, FT was associated with a significantly lower decrease of estimated glomerular filtration rate (weighted mean difference [WMD] -8.06 mL/min/1.73 m; confidence interval [CI] -15.85 to -0.26; P = .04), and lower estimated blood loss (WMD -49.61 mL; CI -60.78 to -38.45; P < .001). However, patients who underwent FT had a significantly increased risk of local recurrence (risk ratio [RR] 9.89; CI 4.24-23.04; P < .001) and distant metastasis (RR 6.42; CI 1.70-24.33; P = .006). However, operative times, lengths of stay, and complication rates were revealed to be similar between FT and RPN.
CONCLUSION
RPN has a substantial advantage in preventing cancer recurrence. However, in the era of minimally invasive surgery, FT has advantages in renal function preservation and less bleeding. Long-term follow-up for survival rates and comparative analysis of microwave ablation and irreversible electroporation are needed to extend FT for patients with significant morbidities and for those who need sufficient renal function preservation with minimal bleeding.
Topics: Ablation Techniques; Electrochemotherapy; Glomerular Filtration Rate; Humans; Kidney; Kidney Neoplasms; Length of Stay; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Nephrectomy; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30407321
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013102 -
The Journal of Hospital Infection Nov 2020In pandemics such as COVID-19, shortages of personal protective equipment are common. One solution may be to decontaminate equipment such as facemasks for reuse.
BACKGROUND
In pandemics such as COVID-19, shortages of personal protective equipment are common. One solution may be to decontaminate equipment such as facemasks for reuse.
AIM
To collect and synthesize existing information on decontamination of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) using microwave and heat-based treatments, with special attention to impacts on mask function (aerosol penetration, airflow resistance), fit, and physical traits.
METHODS
A systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42020177036) of literature available from Medline, Embase, Global Health, and other sources was conducted. Records were screened independently by two reviewers, and data was extracted from studies that reported on effects of microwave- or heat-based decontamination on N95 FFR performance, fit, physical traits, and/or reductions in microbial load.
FINDINGS
Thirteen studies were included that used dry/moist microwave irradiation, heat, or autoclaving. All treatment types reduced pathogen load by a log reduction factor of at least three when applied for sufficient duration (>30 s microwave, >60 min dry heat), with most studies assessing viral pathogens. Mask function (aerosol penetration <5% and airflow resistance <25 mmHO) was preserved after all treatments except autoclaving. Fit was maintained for most N95 models, though all treatment types caused observable physical damage to at least one model.
CONCLUSIONS
Microwave irradiation and heat may be safe and effective viral decontamination options for N95 FFR reuse during critical shortages. The evidence does not support autoclaving or high-heat (>90°C) approaches. Physical degradation may be an issue for certain mask models, and more real-world evidence on fit is needed.
Topics: Coronavirus Infections; Decontamination; Equipment Reuse; Guidelines as Topic; Hot Temperature; Humans; Respiratory Protective Devices; Ultraviolet Rays
PubMed: 32841704
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.08.016 -
BMC Emergency Medicine Jun 2022The worldwide burden of stroke remains high, with increasing time-to-treatment correlated with worse outcomes. Yet stroke subtype determination, most importantly between... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The worldwide burden of stroke remains high, with increasing time-to-treatment correlated with worse outcomes. Yet stroke subtype determination, most importantly between stroke/non-stroke and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke, is not confirmed until hospital CT diagnosis, resulting in suboptimal prehospital triage and delayed treatment. In this study, we survey portable, non-invasive diagnostic technologies that could streamline triage by making this initial determination of stroke type, thereby reducing time-to-treatment.
METHODS
Following PRISMA guidelines, we performed a scoping review of portable stroke diagnostic devices. The search was executed in PubMed and Scopus, and all studies testing technology for the detection of stroke or intracranial hemorrhage were eligible for inclusion. Extracted data included type of technology, location, feasibility, time to results, and diagnostic accuracy.
RESULTS
After a screening of 296 studies, 16 papers were selected for inclusion. Studied devices utilized various types of diagnostic technology, including near-infrared spectroscopy (6), ultrasound (4), electroencephalography (4), microwave technology (1), and volumetric impedance spectroscopy (1). Three devices were tested prior to hospital arrival, 6 were tested in the emergency department, and 7 were tested in unspecified hospital settings. Median measurement time was 3 minutes (IQR: 3 minutes to 5.6 minutes). Several technologies showed high diagnostic accuracy in severe stroke and intracranial hematoma detection.
CONCLUSION
Numerous emerging portable technologies have been reported to detect and stratify stroke to potentially improve prehospital triage. However, the majority of these current technologies are still in development and utilize a variety of accuracy metrics, making inter-technology comparisons difficult. Standardizing evaluation of diagnostic accuracy may be helpful in further optimizing portable stroke detection technology for clinical use.
Topics: Emergency Medical Services; Humans; Intracranial Hemorrhages; Stroke; Time-to-Treatment; Triage
PubMed: 35710360
DOI: 10.1186/s12873-022-00663-z -
Medicine Jul 2022Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common malignant tumors. Surgical resection is often only possible in the early stages of HCC and among those with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common malignant tumors. Surgical resection is often only possible in the early stages of HCC and among those with limited cirrhosis. Radiofrequency ablation and Microwave ablation are 2 main types of percutaneous thermal ablation for the treatment of HCC. The efficacy and safety between these 2 therapy methods are still under a debate.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of Radiofrequency ablation and Microwave ablation in treating HCC.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane databases and Web of Science were systematically searched. We included randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing the efficacy and safety of Radiofrequency ablation and Microwave ablation in HCC patients. Outcome measures on local tumor progression, complete ablation, disease-free survival, overall survival, or major complications were compared between the 2 groups. The random effect model was used when there was significant heterogeneity between studies, otherwise the fixed effect model was used.
RESULTS
A total of 33 studies, involving a total of 4589 patients were identified, which included studies comprised 7 RCTs, 24 retrospective observational trials, and 2 prospective observational trial. Microwave ablation had a lower local tumor progression than Radiofrequency ablation in cohort studies (OR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.96, P = .02). Complete ablation rate of Microwave ablation was higher than that of Radiofrequency ablation in cohort studies (OR = 1.54, 95% CI 1.05-2.25, P = .03). There was no significant difference in overall survival and disease-free survival between the 2 groups. Meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the main complications between Microwave ablation and Radiofrequency ablation.
CONCLUSIONS
Microwave ablation has higher complete ablation and lower local tumor progression than Radiofrequency ablation in the ablation treatment of HCC nodules. There was no significant difference in overall survival between the 2 therapy methods.
Topics: Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Catheter Ablation; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Microwaves; Observational Studies as Topic; Radiofrequency Ablation; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35905207
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029321 -
Journal of Cancer Research and... 2020We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of microwave ablation (MWA) versus other treatment modalities for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study was registered in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of microwave ablation (MWA) versus other treatment modalities for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study was registered in Prospero (registration number CRD42017057046). A complete electronic search was conducted for studies on MWA versus other interventions for HCC using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases, and ISI Web of Science. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials were included. Data on technical efficacy, local tumor progression (LTP), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and major complications were extracted from included studies and combined to be analyzed via random effects models. OS was set as the primary outcome measure. Fifteen clinical studies were identified. When comparing MWA with radiofrequency ablation (RFA), no significant difference was found in 3-year OS rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-1.34, P = 0.74), 5-year OS rates (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.58-1.18, P = 0.29), 3-year PFS rates (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77-1.43, P = 0.74), 1-year LTP rate (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.52-3.18,P = 0.59), technical efficacy rate (OR 1. 35, 95% CI 0. 85-2.15, P = 0.20), and major complication rate (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.56-1.93, P = 0.90). When comparing MWA with hepatic resection, the 3-year OS rate was not significantly different (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59-1.35, P = 0.59). Compared with RFA and hepatic resection, MWA showed similar safety and efficacy for HCC, especially in OS rate and PFS. However, high-quality clinical trials are needed to validate the superiority of MWA.
Topics: Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Hepatectomy; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Microwaves; Radiofrequency Ablation; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32474527
DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_403_19 -
Ginekologia Polska 2022Uterine leyomyomas are benign, monoclonal tumors that can cause abnormal uterine bleeding, pelvic pain, dyspareunia and/or obstruction of bladder or rectum. Women's...
OBJECTIVES
Uterine leyomyomas are benign, monoclonal tumors that can cause abnormal uterine bleeding, pelvic pain, dyspareunia and/or obstruction of bladder or rectum. Women's growing interest in treatments that avoid surgery and/or preserve the uterus has contributed to the development of minimally invasive methods. Conducting a literature review and assessment of the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive methods of treating fibroids, with particular emphasis on high intensity focused ultrasound.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Systematic review of MEDLINE, Cochrane and PubMed was performed using the following key words: uterine artery embolization, high-intensity focused ultrasound, microwave ablation, radiofrequency ablation, minimally invasive, leiomyoma, fertility, pregnancy. English abstracts relevant to the topic were selected. Full-text articles were carefully analyzed.
RESULTS
Uterine artery embolization is a proven, widely accepted method that is effective in appropriately qualified cases. Although high focused ultrasound is still an experimental procedure, preliminary studies seem to be promising. If its efficacy and safety are confirmed in randomized controlled trials, this method may find its place in clinical practice. Microwave and radiofrequency ablation are interesting minimally invasive methods with the future potential to be recognized as a method of treating fibroids.
CONCLUSIONS
Minimally invasive methods are becoming an important treatment option for fibroids. Further research is needed to recognize these procedures as a fully-fledged alternative to surgical treatment.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Uterine Neoplasms; Leiomyoma; Uterine Artery Embolization; Uterus; Hysterectomy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35106750
DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2021.0202