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
1秒前
冷静如柏完成签到,获得积分10
1秒前
1秒前
lebron发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
斑驳发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
喜肥发布了新的文献求助10
2秒前
sherlin关注了科研通微信公众号
2秒前
左帅发布了新的文献求助10
2秒前
TYH发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
Zhaonanyu发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
肖旻发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
半个柚子发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
Jasper应助leolee采纳,获得10
4秒前
GD发布了新的文献求助10
4秒前
4秒前
炙热紫完成签到,获得积分10
5秒前
路由器发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
执念完成签到,获得积分10
5秒前
5秒前
Vince完成签到,获得积分10
5秒前
曦曦发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
俏皮弱发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
852应助lyh采纳,获得10
6秒前
6秒前
6秒前
高乐多完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
赘婿应助Dodo采纳,获得10
6秒前
6秒前
思源应助医院的孩子采纳,获得10
7秒前
Fan发布了新的文献求助10
8秒前
8秒前
烟花应助平凡的一天采纳,获得30
8秒前
8秒前
9秒前
9秒前
阿吉完成签到,获得积分10
9秒前
10秒前
10秒前
10秒前
龟蒙真人完成签到,获得积分10
10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
Kinesiophobia : a new view of chronic pain behavior 5000
Molecular Biology of Cancer: Mechanisms, Targets, and Therapeutics 3000
Digital Twins of Advanced Materials Processing 2000
Weaponeering, Fourth Edition – Two Volume SET 2000
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 6016798
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 7599751
关于积分的说明 16153813
捐赠科研通 5164624
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 2764721
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 1745784
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 1635003