亲爱的研友该休息了!由于当前在线用户较少,发布求助请尽量完整地填写文献信息,科研通机器人24小时在线,伴您度过漫漫科研夜!身体可是革命的本钱,早点休息,好梦!

Endoscopic radiofrequency ablation plus plastic stent placement versus stent placement alone for unresectable extrahepatic biliary cancer: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

医学 危险系数 射频消融术 置信区间 支架 随机对照试验 内镜逆行胰胆管造影术 临床终点 不利影响 外科 烧蚀 内科学 胰腺炎
作者
Dao‐jian Gao,Jianfeng Yang,Shuren Ma,Jun Wu,Tiantian Wang,Hangbin Jin,Mingxing Xia,Yingchun Zhang,Hongzhang Shen,Xin Ye,Xiaofeng Zhang,Bing Hu
出处
期刊:Gastrointestinal Endoscopy [Elsevier]
卷期号:94 (1): 91-100.e2 被引量:76
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2020.12.016
摘要

Background and Aims We sought to compare the efficacy and safety between endoscopic radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and stent placement alone in patients with unresectable extrahepatic biliary cancer (EBC). Methods In this randomized controlled trial, patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) or ampullary cancer who were unsuitable for surgery were recruited from 3 tertiary centers. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to RFA plus plastic stent placement (RFA group) or plastic stent placement alone (stent placement alone group) in a 1:1 ratio. Both groups underwent 2 scheduled interventions with an interval of approximately 3 months. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Results Altogether, 174 participants completed the 2 index endoscopic interventions. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were noted between the 2 groups. The median OS was significantly higher in the RFA group (14.3 vs 9.2 months; hazard ratio, .488; 95% confidence interval, .351-.678; P < .001). A survival benefit was also shown in patients with CCA (13.3 vs 9.2 months; hazard ratio, .546; 95% confidence interval, .386-.771; P < .001). However, no significant between-group differences were found in jaundice control or stent patency duration. The postprocedural Karnofsky performance scores were significantly higher in the RFA group until 9 months (all P < .001). Adverse events were comparable between the 2 groups (27.6% vs 19.5%, P = .211), except for acute cholecystitis, which was more frequently observed in the RFA group (9 vs 0, P = .003). Conclusions Compared with stent placement alone, additional RFA may improve OS and quality of life of patients with inoperable primary EBC who do not undergo systemic treatments. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01844245.) We sought to compare the efficacy and safety between endoscopic radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and stent placement alone in patients with unresectable extrahepatic biliary cancer (EBC). In this randomized controlled trial, patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) or ampullary cancer who were unsuitable for surgery were recruited from 3 tertiary centers. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to RFA plus plastic stent placement (RFA group) or plastic stent placement alone (stent placement alone group) in a 1:1 ratio. Both groups underwent 2 scheduled interventions with an interval of approximately 3 months. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Altogether, 174 participants completed the 2 index endoscopic interventions. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were noted between the 2 groups. The median OS was significantly higher in the RFA group (14.3 vs 9.2 months; hazard ratio, .488; 95% confidence interval, .351-.678; P < .001). A survival benefit was also shown in patients with CCA (13.3 vs 9.2 months; hazard ratio, .546; 95% confidence interval, .386-.771; P < .001). However, no significant between-group differences were found in jaundice control or stent patency duration. The postprocedural Karnofsky performance scores were significantly higher in the RFA group until 9 months (all P < .001). Adverse events were comparable between the 2 groups (27.6% vs 19.5%, P = .211), except for acute cholecystitis, which was more frequently observed in the RFA group (9 vs 0, P = .003). Compared with stent placement alone, additional RFA may improve OS and quality of life of patients with inoperable primary EBC who do not undergo systemic treatments. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01844245.)
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
ff567发布了新的文献求助80
4秒前
NexusExplorer应助松林采纳,获得10
7秒前
FashionBoy应助金林彤采纳,获得10
9秒前
冷酷哈密瓜完成签到,获得积分10
10秒前
CipherSage应助小刘不牛采纳,获得10
14秒前
ding应助zpctx采纳,获得10
14秒前
黄科研完成签到 ,获得积分10
15秒前
太阳当空照完成签到 ,获得积分10
16秒前
FashionBoy应助小巧的灵竹采纳,获得10
17秒前
在水一方应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
18秒前
汉堡包应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
18秒前
大个应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
18秒前
李爱国应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
18秒前
kei完成签到 ,获得积分10
18秒前
斯文败类应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
18秒前
小马甲应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
18秒前
18秒前
科目三应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
18秒前
21秒前
自由的云朵完成签到 ,获得积分10
21秒前
21秒前
22秒前
彩色凌文发布了新的文献求助10
25秒前
26秒前
小刘不牛发布了新的文献求助10
26秒前
zpctx发布了新的文献求助10
26秒前
ff567完成签到 ,获得积分10
27秒前
PYF完成签到,获得积分10
28秒前
欢喜的文轩完成签到 ,获得积分10
29秒前
顺其自然完成签到 ,获得积分10
30秒前
子咸发布了新的文献求助10
30秒前
敞敞亮亮完成签到 ,获得积分10
31秒前
Yinglan完成签到,获得积分10
32秒前
kzx发布了新的文献求助10
38秒前
40秒前
Chemistry完成签到 ,获得积分10
40秒前
41秒前
42秒前
奋斗的萝完成签到,获得积分10
42秒前
牛牛完成签到,获得积分10
44秒前
高分求助中
(应助此贴封号)【重要!!请各用户(尤其是新用户)详细阅读】【科研通的精品贴汇总】 10000
Modern Epidemiology, Fourth Edition 5000
Handbook of pharmaceutical excipients, Ninth edition 5000
Digital Twins of Advanced Materials Processing 2000
Weaponeering, Fourth Edition – Two Volume SET 2000
Polymorphism and polytypism in crystals 1000
Signals, Systems, and Signal Processing 610
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 工程类 有机化学 纳米技术 化学工程 生物化学 物理 计算机科学 内科学 复合材料 催化作用 物理化学 光电子学 电极 冶金 细胞生物学 基因
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 6020820
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 7622661
关于积分的说明 16165630
捐赠科研通 5168524
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 2766080
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 1748442
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 1636074