BackgroundThe percutaneous thermal ablation techniques (pTA) are radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation, and microwave ablation, suitable for the treatment of bone oligometastases. Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) is a noninvasive ablation technique.ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness and safety of MRgFUS and pTA for treating bone oligometastases and their complications.MethodsStudies were selected with a PICO/PRISMA protocol: pTA or MRgFUS in patients with bone oligometastases; non-exclusive curative treatment. Exclusion criteria were: primary bone tumor; concurrent radiation therapy; palliative therapy; and absence of imaging at follow-up. PubMed, BioMed Central, and Scopus were searched. The modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessed articles quality. For each treatment (pTA and MRgFUS), we conducted two separate random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the pooled effectiveness and safety. The effectiveness was assessed by combining the proportions of treated lesions achieving local tumor control (LTC); the safety by combining the complications rates of treated patients. Meta-regression analyses were performed to identify any outcome predictor.ResultsA total of 24 articles were included. Pooled LTC rate for MRgFUS was 84% (N = 7, 95% CI 66-97%, I2 = 74.7%) compared to 65% of pTA (N = 17, 95% CI 51-78%, I2 = 89.3%). Pooled complications rate was similar, respectively, 13% (95% CI 1-32%, I2 = 81.0%) for MRgFUS and 12% (95% CI 8-18%, I2 = 39.9%) for pTA, but major complications were recorded with pTA only.The meta-regression analyses, including technique type, study design, tumor, and follow-up, found no significant predictors.ResultsA total of 24 articles were included. Pooled LTC rate for MRgFUS was 84% (N = 7, 95% CI 66-97%, I2 = 74.7%) compared to 65% of pTA (N = 17, 95% CI 51-78%, I2 = 89.3%). Pooled complications rate was similar, respectively, 13% (95% CI 1-32%, I2 = 81.0%) for MRgFUS and 12% (95% CI 8-18%, I2 = 39.9%) for pTA, but major complications were recorded with pTA only.The meta-regression analyses, including technique type, study design, tumor, and follow-up, found no significant predictors.DiscussionThe effectiveness and safety of the two techniques were found comparable, even though MRgFUS is a noninvasive treatment that did not cause any major complication. Limited data availability on MRgFUS and the lack of direct comparisons with pTA may affect these findings.ConclusionsMRgFUS can be a valid, safe, and noninvasive treatment for bone oligometastases. Direct comparison studies are needed to confirm its promising benefits.

Leporace, M., Lancellotta, V., Baccolini, V., Calabria, F., Castrovillari, F., Filippiadis, D. K., Tagliaferri, L., Iezzi, R., Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound versus percutaneous thermal ablation in local control of bone oligometastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis, <<LA RADIOLOGIA MEDICA>>, 2024; 129 (2): 291-306. [doi:10.1007/s11547-024-01780-4] [https://hdl.handle.net/10807/274386]

Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound versus percutaneous thermal ablation in local control of bone oligometastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lancellotta, Valentina;Tagliaferri, Luca;Iezzi, Roberto
2024

Abstract

BackgroundThe percutaneous thermal ablation techniques (pTA) are radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation, and microwave ablation, suitable for the treatment of bone oligometastases. Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) is a noninvasive ablation technique.ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness and safety of MRgFUS and pTA for treating bone oligometastases and their complications.MethodsStudies were selected with a PICO/PRISMA protocol: pTA or MRgFUS in patients with bone oligometastases; non-exclusive curative treatment. Exclusion criteria were: primary bone tumor; concurrent radiation therapy; palliative therapy; and absence of imaging at follow-up. PubMed, BioMed Central, and Scopus were searched. The modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessed articles quality. For each treatment (pTA and MRgFUS), we conducted two separate random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the pooled effectiveness and safety. The effectiveness was assessed by combining the proportions of treated lesions achieving local tumor control (LTC); the safety by combining the complications rates of treated patients. Meta-regression analyses were performed to identify any outcome predictor.ResultsA total of 24 articles were included. Pooled LTC rate for MRgFUS was 84% (N = 7, 95% CI 66-97%, I2 = 74.7%) compared to 65% of pTA (N = 17, 95% CI 51-78%, I2 = 89.3%). Pooled complications rate was similar, respectively, 13% (95% CI 1-32%, I2 = 81.0%) for MRgFUS and 12% (95% CI 8-18%, I2 = 39.9%) for pTA, but major complications were recorded with pTA only.The meta-regression analyses, including technique type, study design, tumor, and follow-up, found no significant predictors.ResultsA total of 24 articles were included. Pooled LTC rate for MRgFUS was 84% (N = 7, 95% CI 66-97%, I2 = 74.7%) compared to 65% of pTA (N = 17, 95% CI 51-78%, I2 = 89.3%). Pooled complications rate was similar, respectively, 13% (95% CI 1-32%, I2 = 81.0%) for MRgFUS and 12% (95% CI 8-18%, I2 = 39.9%) for pTA, but major complications were recorded with pTA only.The meta-regression analyses, including technique type, study design, tumor, and follow-up, found no significant predictors.DiscussionThe effectiveness and safety of the two techniques were found comparable, even though MRgFUS is a noninvasive treatment that did not cause any major complication. Limited data availability on MRgFUS and the lack of direct comparisons with pTA may affect these findings.ConclusionsMRgFUS can be a valid, safe, and noninvasive treatment for bone oligometastases. Direct comparison studies are needed to confirm its promising benefits.
2024
Inglese
Leporace, M., Lancellotta, V., Baccolini, V., Calabria, F., Castrovillari, F., Filippiadis, D. K., Tagliaferri, L., Iezzi, R., Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound versus percutaneous thermal ablation in local control of bone oligometastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis, <<LA RADIOLOGIA MEDICA>>, 2024; 129 (2): 291-306. [doi:10.1007/s11547-024-01780-4] [https://hdl.handle.net/10807/274386]
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10807/274386
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact