In a nutshell
This meta-analysis (an analysis of data combined from several similar studies) compared the efficacy of radiofrequency ablation versus liver resection in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases.
Some background
Colorectal cancer liver metastasis refers to cancer that has spread to the liver. Liver resection or surgical removal of part of the liver that contains the cancer has been the standard method of treatment for liver metastasis.
A minimally invasive treatment called radiofrequency ablation is an alternative treatment to liver resection. Radiofrequency ablation uses electrical energy to heat and destroy cancer cells.
This analysis compared the results of several trials investigating the efficacy of radiofrequency ablation and liver resection in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases.
Methods & findings
This analysis reviewed 13 studies including 1886 patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases.
The 3-year and 5-year overall survival was higher in patients treated with liver resection compared to those treated with radiofrequency ablation. Liver resection increased the chances of 3-year overall survival by 37.7% and the chances of 5-year overall survival by 47.4% compared to radiofrequency ablation.
Similarly, the likelihood of 3-year and 5-year disease-free survival (defined as the percentage of patients who survive without any signs or symptoms of the cancer) was significantly higher in patients treated with liver resection. Compared to radiofrequency ablation, liver resection increased the chances of 3-year disease free survival by 73.5% and the chances of 5-year disease-free survival by 122.7%.
However, postoperative morbidity (incidence of disease) increased by 2.5 times following liver resection compared to radiofrequency ablation.
The bottom line
This analysis concluded that liver resection was significantly superior to radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of colorectal cancer liver metastases.
The fine print
12 out of the 13 studies included in this analysis were performed retrospectively. These studies may have created a slight bias in the presented results.
What’s next?
Consult with your physician regarding the benefits and risks of either of the treatments and determine the most appropriate treatment option for you.
Published By :
PLOS ONE
Date :
Sep 21, 2012
