Purpose

To retrospectively compare efficacy and safety of computed tomography (CT)-guided percutaneous ablation of metastatic lymph nodes (LN) between cryoablation (CA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA).

Materials and Methods

A bi-central institutional database research identified 28 patients (42 metastatic LNs) who underwent percutaneous CT-guided ablation. RFA group included 18 patients/26 tumors; CA group included 10 patients/16 tumors. Contrast-enhanced CT or MRI was used for post-ablation follow-up. Patient and tumor characteristics, technical and clinical success on a per tumor and a per patient basis and complication rates were recorded, evaluated and compared between the 2 groups.

Results

Both RFA and CA groups had the same median tumor size (2.00 vs. 2.20 cm, p = 0.257), the same median follow-up time (20.50 vs. 20.00 months, p = 0.923) and the same median length of hospital stay (1.00 vs. 1.00 days, p = 0.283). CA group had a higher median procedure time (110.50 vs. 52.00 min, p = 0.001). On a per lesion basis, the overall complete response post-ablation was 88.46% (23/26 lesions) in the RFA and 93.75% (15/16 lesions) in the CA group; no association was revealed between local tumor control and ablation technique (p = 0.709). No complications were recorded in both Groups. On a per patient basis, CA had a longer disease-free interval (24.00 vs. 14.50, p = 0.012) which, however, did not affect the overall survival between the two techniques (26.0 vs. 22.0, p = 0.099 for CA and RFA respectively).

Conclusion

Our limited data suggest that CT-guided RFA and CA are equally effective on terms of efficacy and safety for the treatment of metastatic lymph nodes.

中文翻译：

---

转移性淋巴结经皮消融：冷冻消融与射频消融疗效和安全性比较的见解

目的

回顾性比较冷冻消融 (CA) 和射频消融 (RFA) 之间计算机断层扫描 (CT) 引导的经皮转移淋巴结 (LN) 消融的疗效和安全性。

材料和方法

一项双中心机构数据库研究确定了 28 名接受经皮 CT 引导消融的患者（42 例转移性淋巴结）。RFA组包括18名患者/26个肿瘤；CA组包括10名患者/16个肿瘤。消融后随访采用对比增强 CT 或 MRI。记录、评估和比较两组患者和肿瘤的特征、每个肿瘤和每个患者的技术和临床成功率以及并发症发生率。

结果

RFA 和 CA 组的中位肿瘤大小相同（2.00 对 2.20 厘米，p  = 0.257），相同的中位随访时间（20.50 对 20.00 个月，p  = 0.923）和相同的中位住院时间（ 1.00 与 1.00 天，p  = 0.283）。CA 组的中位手术时间更长（110.50 对 52.00 分钟，p  = 0.001）。在每个病灶的基础上，RFA 组消融后的总体完全缓解率为 88.46%（23/26 个病灶），CA 组为 93.75%（15/16 个病灶）；局部肿瘤控制和消融技术之间没有关联（p  = 0.709）。两组均未出现并发症。在每位患者的基础上，CA 的无病间隔更长（24.00 对 14.50，p = 0.012），然而，这并不影响两种技术之间的总生存期（CA 和 RFA 分别为 26.0 对 22.0，p  = 0.099）。

结论

我们有限的数据表明，CT 引导下的 RFA 和 CA 在治疗转移性淋巴结的疗效和安全性方面同样有效。