Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

The efficacy and safety of thermal ablation for patients with lung malignancy: a meta-analysis of 12 studies in China

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery volume 17, Article number: 334 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Thermal ablation has been increasingly used in the treatment of lung cancer in recent years. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the therapeutic effect and safety of thermal ablation plus chemotherapy as compared with chemotherapy alone in treating patients with lung malignancy in China based on current evidence.

Methods

Databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for clinical reports. Additional literature search was also performed by searching the reference list of included studies and latest reviews. Raw data including objective response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival, overall survival and the incidence of major complication were extracted and pooled.

Results

A total of 12 studies in China including 1282 patients with lung malignancy were included in this meta-analysis. The number of studies that reported data of objective response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival, overall survival and major complication was 8, 7, 7, 6 and 7, respectively. The combination therapy of thermal ablation plus chemotherapy showed a significantly better efficacy in improving objective response rate (odds ratio = 2.73; P < 0.001) and disease control rate (odds ratio = 2.43; P < 0.001) as compared with chemotherapy alone. Thermal ablation was also a significant protective factor for progression-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.43; P < 0.001) and overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.49; P < 0.001). Besides, thermal ablation did not increase the risk of major complication (odds ratio = 0.75; P = 0.252).

Conclusion

The present meta-analysis based on these studies in China suggested that thermal ablation is a promising technique to provide better disease response and survival outcomes for patients with lung malignancy. Thermal ablation is worth further promotion in treating lung malignancy and application in clinical practice.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Lung malignancy is one of the most hard-to-treat types of cancer in recent years, with the death incidence being the first among all cancer types worldwide [1]. Lung malignancy can be classified into primary diseases including small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and metastatic diseases which most commonly originate from colorectal cancer [2]. Among them, NSCLC is the predominant type which accounts for approximately 80% of total lung cancer cases, and NSCLC is frequently found as adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma [3].During the recent decades, lung lobectomy has been the first choice in the curative treatment of lung malignancy [4]. However, lung malignancy is difficult to detect and diagnose timely in the early stage due to its mild and obscured symptoms, and it is usually diagnosed when the cancer has progressed. Thus most patients with lung malignancy have missed the best time for surgical resection. Besides, quite a portion of patients are intolerable to major operation due to old age, underling diseases and poor pulmonary function [5]. Patients with unresectable lung malignancy can only receive other treatments such as chemotherapy, EGFR-TKIs. Systemic chemotherapy as the major adjuvant therapy in the treatment of cancer has been widely applied in treating lung cancer. However, the survival benefit after chemotherapy remains limited and poor for patients with unresectable lung malignancy. Given above, a novel therapeutic regimen is necessary to improve the survival outcome of patients with unresectable disease.

Thermal ablation, including radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA), is an emerging non-operative therapeutic approach with minimally invasiveness. In recent years, thermal ablation has been extensively and successfully applied in the treatment of advanced primary and metastatic cancer which are usually unresectable [6]. The working mechanism of thermal ablation is that tumor tissue turns into necrosis under the local high temperature environment mediated by radiofrequency current or microwave. Thermal ablation is a promising therapy with certain curative potential for lung malignancy. Currently, several studies have explored the efficacy and safety of thermal ablation in combination regimens in treating lung malignancy, and certain significance for short-term efficacy has been observed [7]. However, as an invasive operation, thermal ablation is associated with various complications including pneumothorax, hemorrhage hemoptysis, pneumonia cavitation, etc. Therefore, the use of thermal ablation in treating lung malignancy should be given a further investigation on its effectiveness and safety.

In the present meta-analysis, we focused on investigating the clinical efficacy and safety of thermal ablation plus chemotherapy as compared with chemotherapy alone, and tried to provide a valuable reference for the future treatment of lung malignancy.

Methods

Database search

We searched all articles focusing on the combination of thermal ablation plus chemotherapy in patients with either primary or metastatic lung malignancy in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library. The databases were searched for studies published from inception to Jan 31, 2022. In PubMED database, we used Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and text words to generate a three-check subset including thermal ablation, chemotherapy and lung malignancy. The following MeSH terms were used: “radiofrequency ablation” and “microwaves” for identifying the literature of thermal ablation; “chemotherapy, adjuvant” and “drug therapy”, for identifying the literature of chemotherapy; “carcinoma, non-small-cell lung”, “small cell lung cancer” and “lung neoplasms” for identifying the literature of lung malignancy. The following text words including “radiofrequency”, “RFA” and “MWA” were also used for searching literature of thermal ablation. The retrieval formula for this research was generated using “OR” to combine the MeSH terms and text words within each subset, and “AND” to connect the three subsets. Therefore, the generated retrieval formula in PubMed Database was: ((((((radiofrequency ablation[MeSH Terms]) OR (microwaves[MeSH Terms])) OR (radiofrequency[Title/Abstract])) OR (RFA[Title/Abstract])) OR (MWA[Title/Abstract])) AND ((chemotherapy, adjuvant[MeSH Terms]) OR (drug therapy[MeSH Terms]))) AND (((carcinoma, non-small-cell lung[MeSH Terms]) OR (small cell lung cancer[MeSH Terms])) OR (lung neoplasms[MeSH Terms])). The detailed retrieval formula in other databases including Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library was provided in the Additional file 1: Appendix Table.

Additional literature search was performed via examining the reference list of the articles identified and recent reviews. There were two authors assessing the eligibility of literatures for inclusion independently. If there was dissonance of the assessment, further discussion with the third author was conducted to resolve the dissonance. The clinical reports were considered eligible to be included if they fulfilled the following PICOS criteria: (1) P (population): patients with either primary or metastatic lung malignancy; (2) I and C (intervention and comparison): comparative study investigating the combination of thermal ablation plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone; (3) O (outcome): at least one of the following outcomes should be reported: objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) or the number of major complication; (4) S (study design): both retrospective and prospective studies were included. The following articles were excluded during the screening of title, abstract and full text: (1) duplicate records; (2) case report or case series with limited number of patients; (3) specific types of paper without available data such as review, meta-analysis, guideline, letter, comment, editorial, protocol, response, etc.; (4) with less than 10 patients; (5) basic research; (6) no available data were found in the full text review. Endnotes (version X8) was used to manage the articles throughout the literature search and screening process. The protocol of this meta-analysis has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, registration ID: CRD42022307094).

Data extraction and quality assessment

After the eligible articles were finally included, raw data were extracted by two authors independently. The dissonance of the results was resolved in the similar way as described in the Database Search section. The following characteristics of included studies were collected: year of publication, first author, study location, type of lung malignancy, stage of malignancy, previous treatment, study design, type of ablation (RFA or MWA), total sample size, sample size of the control group (chemotherapy alone) and the experimental group (chemotherapy plus thermal ablation), average age of the sample population, average follow-up time. The following raw statistics were extracted for data synthesis: ORR (alternatively number of complete response (CR) and partial response (PR)), DCR (alternatively CR, PR and stable disease (SD)), HR and 95% CI for PFS and OS, number of major complications in both groups. If Kaplan–Meier curve for PFS and OS were provided instead of HR and 95% CI, then the data of time-to-event were extracted from Kaplan–Meier curve by using the software Engauge, and the data were further used to calculate the HR and 95% CI via the method provided by Tierney et al. [8].

Study quality was accessed based on the coding manual for cohort studies of the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, which was endorsed by the Cochrane Collaboration to assess the quality of observational studies in its 2011 handbook. The following items were referred for allocation of stars/scores:

  1. (1)

    Representativeness of the exposed cohort;

  2. (2)

    Selection of the non-exposed cohort;

  3. (3)

    Ascertainment of exposure;

  4. (4)

    Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study;

  5. (5)

    Comparability of cohorts: age;

  6. (6)

    Comparability of cohorts: other factors including gender, race, smoking history, etc.;

  7. (7)

    Assessment of outcome;

  8. (8)

    Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur;

  9. (9)

    Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts.

The dissonance of the results was resolved in the similar way as described in the Database Search section. The risk of bias was assessed according to the summary of the above items.

Definitions

ORR and DCR

The evaluation of tumor response was based on the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1. ORR was defined as the rate of complete response (CR) + partial response (PR), while DCR was defined as the rate of CR + PR + stable disease (SD). Notably, in the experimental group, ORR and DCR should be evaluated after the combination treatments of chemotherapy and ablation, instead of chemotherapy alone. If ORR and DCR in the experimental group were only evaluated for chemotherapy, then the data were considered unsuitable for data synthesis and recorded as NA (not applicable).

PFS and OS

PFS was defined as the period from the date of treatment start or the baseline assessment until objective disease progression or subjective disease deterioration or death, whichever occurred first. OS was defined as the time from treatment start or the baseline assessment to the date of death. Progression-free survival was censored on the date of last cancer assessment of patients if the cancer had not progressed. Overall survival was censored on the time of last follow up if patients had not died or lost follow up.

Complication

Complication during treatment in both group were assessed based on the Common Terminology Criteria Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0:

  1. (1)

    Grade 1: Mild adverse events (AEs); asymptomatic or mild symptoms; requiring no treatment;

  2. (2)

    Grade 2: Moderate AEs; requiring less treatment; local or non-invasive treatment;

  3. (3)

    Grade 3: Severe AEs but not immediately life-threatening; hospitalization or prolong of hospitalization;

  4. (4)

    Grade 4: Life-threatening; requiring emergency treatment;

  5. (5)

    Grade 5: Death due to AEs.

Major complications were considered as CTCAE grade ≥ 3.

Main outcomes analysis

Data analysis was performed by two authors independently likewise. As for the mismatch of analysis results calculated by the two authors, a third author would preside over a discussion until consensus was reached. The following outcomes were pooled from raw data: odds ratio (OR) for ORR, DCR and major complication, and HR for PFS and OS.

Subgroup analysis

Subgroup analysis was conducted via the metan module of the STATA software. The studies were divided into subgroups according to the following factors: type of lung cancer, stage of NSCLC, previous treatment (treatment naïve or not), study design (randomized or not), type of ablation (RFA or MWA), total sample size (> or ≤ 100), average age of the sample population (> or ≤ 60), average follow up time (> or ≤ 24 months). Additionally, since HR of PFS and OS was extracted from Kaplan–Meier curve in several studies and there might be subjective bias for this method, we further performed subgroup analysis for PFS and OS in terms of whether HR was extracted from Kaplan–Meier curve.

Statistical analysis

The risk of bias graph was plotted by using Review Manager Version 5.3 (RevMan, The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom). The metan module of the STATA software, version 15 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX) was used to compare the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy plus thermal ablation versus chemotherapy alone. P-value < 0.05 was considered as the threshold of statistical significance. Statistical significance (P < 0.05) of OR and HR was determined by the Z test. The results were presented as pooled estimate with 95% CI and plotted as forest plot. Heterogeneity of included studies was evaluated via the I2 statistic and P value. A random-effects model was used to pool studies with significant heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by omitting one literature at each analysis to evaluate the effect of each study on the overall result. Publication bias was estimated by using funnel-plot and Egger’s test. The metaninf module and metabias module of the STATA software were used for sensitivity analysis and publication bias, respectively. The funnel for identifying the underreported articles was also plotted by using the metafunnel module of STATA to visually display the results of reporting bias assessment.

All extracted data are summarized in an Excel file which is available in the Additional file 2: Extracted Raw Data.

Results

Characteristics of included studies

As depicted in Fig. 1, a total of 266 and 31 articles were initially identified from databases searching and citation searching, respectively. After screening by reviewing title, abstract and full text, 12 articles were finally included in the meta-analysis [7, 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. The characteristics of included articles were summarized in Table 1. All the studies were conducted in China, with a total of 1282 patients included. One study included patients with lung metastases from colorectal cancer. Most of the study population were with advanced lung cancer (stage IIIb-IV). Half of the studies were randomized performed. As for the technique of ablation, 5 and 7 studies used RFA and MWA, respectively. The outcomes of patients in each study were listed in Table 2.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of selection of studies

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of included studies
Full size table
Table 2 Clinical outcomes of patients included in each study
Full size table

As depicted in Fig. 2A and B, 11 of the 12 studies were considered as high quality with NOS score ≥ 7. All studies had good performance in “representativeness of the exposed cohort”, “selection of the non-exposed cohort”, “ascertainment of exposure”, “demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study and assessment of outcome”. While for the “comparability of cohorts: age”, “comparability of cohorts: other factors” and “was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur”, 9 of 12 studies got 1 score.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Quality assessment of included studies: A the figure shows the authors' judgments about each aspect of quality item for each included study. B The results are also presented as percentages across all included studies

Full size image

Main finding: ORR

The combination therapy induced better ORR with OR = 2.73 (95% CI 1.69–4.42; P < 0.001). The forest plot in Fig. 3A showed that all included studies had an OR > 1. The heterogeneity was moderate with I2 = 55% and P = 0.031. Sensitivity analysis in Fig. 3B suggested a relatively stable result with all ORs and 95% CIs > 1. The ORs ranged from 2.5 to 3.08. The funnel plot (Fig. 3C) showed a slight asymmetry with the study by Shuo et al. deviating from the funnel, although Egger’s test suggested no significant publication bias (P = 0.084). The former sensitivity analysis showed that omitting the study by Shuo et al. yielded an OR of 2.32 with 95% CI of 1.53–3.54 which was not significantly different with the overall OR. Thus the effect of potential publication bias was quite minor.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Objective response rate of chemotherapy plus thermal ablation versus chemotherapy alone: A forest plot for overall odds ratio; B sensitivity analysis; C funnel plot for publication bias evaluation

Full size image

Main finding: DCR

The combination therapy of chemotherapy plus thermal ablation significantly improved the disease control rate with OR = 2.43 (95% CI 1.68–3.5; P < 0.001). The forest plot in Fig. 4A showed that all included studies had an OR > 1. There was no obvious heterogeneity with I2 = 0% and P = 0.44. Sensitivity analysis in Fig. 4B showed a very stable result with ORs ranging from 2.31 to 2.81 and all 95% CIs > 1. Egger’s test indicated no significant publication bias (P = 0.251). Similarly, the study by Shuo et al. deviating from the funnel led to slight asymmetry of the funnel plot (Fig. 4C). Omitting the study by Shuo et al. yielded an OR of 2.32 with 95% CI of 1.59–3.38 which was not different with the overall OR. Therefore the impact of potential publication bias was also minimal.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Disease control rate of chemotherapy plus thermal ablation versus chemotherapy alone: A forest plot for overall odds ratio; B sensitivity analysis; C funnel plot for publication bias evaluation

Full size image

Main finding: PFS

The pooled HR (0.43; 95% CI 0.31–0.59; P < 0.001) indicated that the combination of chemotherapy and thermal ablation could more effectively protect patients from disease progression as compared with chemotherapy alone (Fig. 5A). The heterogeneity was moderate with I2 = 69% and P = 0.003. Sensitivity analysis in Fig. 5B showed that HRs ranged from 0.39 to 0.49 and all 95% CIs < 1, which were relatively stable with only minor variations as compared with the overall HR (0.43). Egger’s test indicated no significant publication bias (P = 0. 331). The funnel plot in Fig. 5C was basically symmetrical.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Progression-free survival of chemotherapy plus thermal ablation versus chemotherapy alone: A forest plot for overall odds ratio; B sensitivity analysis; C funnel plot for publication bias evaluation

Full size image

Main finding: OS

The combination therapy of thermal ablation plus chemotherapy significantly improved the overall survival with HR = 0.49 (95% CI 0.37–0.66; P < 0.001) (Fig. 6A). There was moderate heterogeneity with I2 = 58% and P = 0.038. The HRs in the sensitivity analysis in Fig. 6B ranged from 0.43 to 0.53 with all 95% CIs < 1. Egger’s test indicated no significant publication bias (P = 0.92) and the funnel plot in Fig. 6C showed good symmetry.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Overall survival of chemotherapy plus thermal ablation versus chemotherapy alone: A forest plot for overall odds ratio; B sensitivity analysis; C funnel plot for publication bias evaluation

Full size image

Main finding: major complication

As shown in Fig. 7A, the risk of major complication of the combination treatment and chemotherapy monotherapy was not different (OR = 0.75; 95% CI 0.47–1.22; P = 0.252). The heterogeneity was minor with I2 = 37% and P = 0.161).The sensitivity analysis also supported the main finding, with lower limits of 95% CIs < 1 and upper limits > 1 (Fig. 7B). Egger’s test indicated no significant publication bias (P = 0.686) and the funnel plot in Fig. 7C showed good symmetry.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Major complication of chemotherapy plus thermal ablation versus chemotherapy alone: A forest plot for overall odds ratio; B sensitivity analysis; C funnel plot for publication bias evaluation

Full size image

Additional analysis: subgroup analysis

The subgroup analysis further supported the main findings of the meta-analysis, with significantly improved ORR, DCR, PFS and OS in almost all subgroups with number of studies > 1 (Table 3). Notably, despite that there might be subjective bias for HRs of PFS and OS extracted from Kaplan–Meier curve, it turned out that the survival results remained the same regardless of whether HR was extracted from Kaplan–Meier curve. As for the heterogeneity, heterogeneity was not significantly reduced by dividing the studies into different subgroups according to the above mentioned variables.

Table 3 Subgroup analysis
Full size table

Discussion

The main findings in the present meta-analysis suggest that thermal ablation can significantly improve the disease response and survival outcomes for patients with lung malignancy. Out of our expectation, as an invasive operation, thermal ablation did not significantly increase the risk of major complication. Actually, most of the studies suggested that the combination of thermal ablation and chemotherapy might reduce the probability of major complication. For instance, in the study by Yang et al., the rate of major complication of combination group was 31.3% (n = 48) while in chemotherapy group 53.3% (n = 45) [14]. Thermal ablation significantly reduced the incidences of weakness (12.5% versus 46.7%, P < 0.001) and gastrointestinal reaction (25.0% versus 77.8%, P < 0.001) of patients undergoing chemotherapy. A reasonable explanation is that thermal ablation can substantially alleviate the tumor burden so as to reduce the probability of complication. Another explanation by the authors is that hyperthermia as a physical therapy could help relax patients and enhance metabolism, which might be associated with the potential inhibition of the secretion of 5-hydroxytryptamine and neurokinin-1. According to Wei et al. [16] ablation-related major complications only account for approximately 20% in the MWA plus chemotherapy group. It seems that the benefit of ablation has overwhelmed its invasiveness. There are several advantages of thermal ablation in treating primary and metastatic lung malignancy. The ideal treatment outcome for wedge resection, lobar resection and pneumonectomy would be to eliminate the malignancy with minimal loss of lung parenchyma [20]. In contrast, image-guided thermal ablation aims to induce cancer tissue necrosis precisely which is not limited by the segmental anatomy of the lungs, thus more pulmonary tissue peripheral to the tumor can be preserved [21]. More importantly, the treatment of thermal ablation leaves room for further repeated ablations, considering the multiple lesions of advanced lung malignancy as well as the frequent recurrence [22]. The minimal invasiveness is another advantage of thermal ablation. Pulmonary ablation can be commonly well tolerated by the majority of patients, even those with reduced cardiac and pulmonary reserve. According to a retrospective single-institution study of 1000 RFA sessions in 420 patients by Masataka et al. [23], the procedure-related mortality was 0.4% with one death from hemothorax and three deaths from interstitial pneumonia. In the current meta-analysis, the superiority of thermal ablation has been reflected by the significantly improved treatment efficacy without increased major complications, which can be owed to the above features of thermal ablation.

The subgroup analysis in this meta-analysis suggests that both RFA and MWA can enhance the treatment efficacy. Currently, there is limited data on comparing the efficacy of RFA and MWA in treating lung malignancy. There are also no relevant guidelines or expert consensus concerning the optimal selection of ablative technique in treating lung malignancy. The lung has higher electric impedance than the liver and kidney due to its aerated feature, as the air in the lung tissue is a great insulator for thermal energy. Therefore, MWA might be more effective in treating lung malignancy since it can create a more predictable, confluent, and larger necrotic volume which is less susceptible to heat sink effect due to its higher electromagnetic frequency [24, 25]. MWA can also sufficiently induce one pulmonary lesion within only five minute after antenna placement, which is much faster than RFA [26]. However, MWA might lead to increased complication due to its greater power. The antenna of MWA should usually be placed 2 cm of aerated lung between the ablation zone and the pleural surface if possible so as to reduce the probability of prolonged pain, pneumothorax, and skin burn [27]. Future clinical investigations comparing the ablation modalities may be useful in the treatment strategy for patients with lung malignancy.

There is heterogeneity for several analysis in this study. For instance, there is heterogeneity with I2 = 55% for the analysis of ORR. According to the Cochrane Handbook Version 5.1.0 of systematic review, the heterogeneity should be considered as “moderate”. The source of heterogeneity should be due to the intrinsic characteristics of the current study design, which included both prospective and retrospective studies. The importance of the observed value of I2 (55%, moderate) depends on the magnitude and direction of effects. In the forest plot of Fig. 3A, we observed that all included studies had an OR > 1. The lower limit of 95% CI more than a half of the studies (5 of 8) was also larger than 1. Therefore these data strongly suggested that the combination therapy improved objective response rate. Besides, sensitivity analysis in Fig. 3B also indicated a relatively stable result with all ORs and lower 95% CI limits > 1, which further confirmed the efficacy of combination therapy. Based on these analysis, the test efficacy should be considered as sufficient and convincing.

There are several limitations of this meta-analysis. First, the size of population in each study included is relative small. This is a inherent limitation for current available studies since thermal ablation has been used in patients with lung malignancy only in recent years. Second, there exists heterogeneity of included studies, and the source of heterogeneity has not been fully determined in the current meta-analysis. We considered that the different study design in each study might lead to greater deviation of the outcomes, thus enhancing the overall heterogeneity. Third, the articles included in this study are all within the scope of China. We aimed to search the studies worldwide at the first stage of this meta-analysis. However, only studies in China were finally identified and eligible for inclusion. This might be due to that the current thermal ablation in treating lung malignancy is mostly applied in Chinese medical centers. Besides, there are a large number of patients with lung malignancy in China. Thus currently only studies in China with ample patients are qualified to be included in this meta-analysis.

Conclusion

Thermal ablation is an effective, well-tolerated and safe local treatment method for lung malignancy. These studies in China suggested that thermal ablation is a promising technique to improve the tumor response and patient survival for patients with lung malignancy undergoing chemotherapy. This meta-analysis provides supporting evidence for the clinical application of thermal ablation in treating lung malignancy.

Availability of data and materials

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its Additional files 1, 2.

Abbreviations

NSCLC:

Non-small cell lung cancer

SCLC:

Small cell lung cancer

RFA:

Radiofrequency ablation

MWA:

Microwave ablation

ORR:

Objective response rate

DCR:

Disease control rate

PFS:

Progression-free survival

OS:

Overall survival

CR:

Complete response

PR:

Partial response

SD:

Stable disease

OR:

Odds ratio

HR:

Hazard ratio

CTCAE:

Common Terminology Criteria Adverse Events

AE:

Adverse event

NA:

Not available

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Guerrera F, Mossetti C, Ceccarelli M, Bruna MC, Bora G, Olivetti S, et al. Surgery of colorectal cancer lung metastases: analysis of survival, recurrence and re-surgery. J Thorac Dis. 2016;8(7):1764–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(2):69–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nomori H, Shiraishi A, Cong Y, Shoji K, Misawa M, Sugimura H, et al. Impact of induction chemoradiotherapy on pulmonary function after lobectomy for lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;155(5):2129–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cykert S, Dilworth-Anderson P, Monroe MH, Walker P, McGuire FR, Corbie-Smith G, et al. Factors associated with decisions to undergo surgery among patients with newly diagnosed early-stage lung cancer. JAMA. 2010;303(23):2368–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Delpla A, de Baere T, Varin E, Deschamps F, Roux C, Tselikas L. Role of thermal ablation in colorectal cancer lung metastases. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(4):908.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Shan Y, Yin X, Lin F, Wang C, Kong Y, Yao W. Chemotherapy combined with intermittent microwave ablation in the treatment of oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer. J BUON. 2021;26(2):320–7.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. 2007;8:16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Shen H, Li XD, Wu CP, Yin YM, Wang RS, Shu YQ. The regimen of gemcitabine and cisplatin combined with radio frequency hyperthermia for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a phase II study. Int J Hyperthermia. 2011;27(1):27–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Li S, He N, Li W, Wu PH. Debulking treatment with CT-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and hepatic artery infusion of floxuridine improves survival of patients with unresectable pulmonary and hepatic metastases of colorectal cancer. Chin J Cancer. 2014;33(6):295–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wei Z, Ye X, Yang X, Huang G, Li W, Wang J, et al. Microwave ablation plus chemotherapy improved progression-free survival of advanced non-small cell lung cancer compared to chemotherapy alone. Med Oncol. 2015;32(2):464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhao Z, Su Z, Zhang W, Luo M, Wang H, Huang L. A randomized study comparing the effectiveness of microwave ablation radioimmunotherapy and postoperative adjuvant chemoradiation in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. J BUON. 2016;21(2):326–32.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Yu S, Wu ZZ, Si HT, Yang S, Liu GM, Zhao XD. Short-term effect analysis of radiofrequency ablation combined chemotherapy on middle and late period non-small cell lung cancer. Oncol Lett. 2016;12(6):4399–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Yang WH, Xie J, Lai ZY, Yang MD, Zhang GH, Li Y, et al. Radiofrequency deep hyperthermia combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Chin Med J (Engl). 2019;132(8):922–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Li C, Wang J, Shao JB, Zhu LM, Sun ZG, Zhang N. Microwave ablation combined with chemotherapy improved progression free survival of IV stage lung adenocarcinoma patients compared with chemotherapy alone. Thorac Cancer. 2019;10(7):1628–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wei Z, Yang X, Ye X, Feng Q, Xu Y, Zhang L, et al. Microwave ablation plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, phase III clinical trial. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(5):2692–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhang YQ, Wu YL, Feng Y, Zhou YX. A clinical study on microwave ablation in combination with chemotherapy in treating peripheral IIIB-IV nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1089/cbr.2020.3859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Xu F, Cai Z, Xu B, Song J, Liu H, Li X, et al. Clinical research on the combined use of systemic chemotherapy and CT-guided radiofrequency ablation in treatment of lung cancer. Lasers Med Sci. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-020-03222-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Feng K, Lu Y. Clinical analysis of systemic administration combined with microwave ablation in the treatment of lung cancer. Asian J Surg. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2021.08.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Callstrom MR, Woodrum DA, Nichols FC, Palussiere J, Buy X, Suh RD, et al. Multicenter study of metastatic lung tumors targeted by interventional cryoablation evaluation (SOLSTICE). J Thorac Oncol. 2020;15(7):1200–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hinshaw JL, Lubner MG, Ziemlewicz TJ, Lee FT Jr, Brace CL. Percutaneous tumor ablation tools: microwave, radiofrequency, or cryoablation–what should you use and why? Radiographics. 2014;34(5):1344–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gonzalez M, Poncet A, Combescure C, Robert J, Ris HB, Gervaz P. Risk factors for survival after lung metastasectomy in colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(2):572–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kashima M, Yamakado K, Takaki H, Kodama H, Yamada T, Uraki J, et al. Complications after 1000 lung radiofrequency ablation sessions in 420 patients: a single center’s experiences. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(4):W576–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Durick NA, Laeseke PF, Broderick LS, Lee FT Jr, Sampson LA, Frey TM, et al. Microwave ablation with triaxial antennas tuned for lung: results in an in vivo porcine model. Radiology. 2008;247(1):80–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Beland MD, Wasser EJ, Mayo-Smith WW, Dupuy DE. Primary non-small cell lung cancer: review of frequency, location, and time of recurrence after radiofrequency ablation. Radiology. 2010;254(1):301–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee KS, Erinjeri JP. Decision making in interventional oncology: ablative options in the lung. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2017;34(2):176–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee KS, Takaki H, Yarmohammadi H, Srimathveeravalli G, Luchins K, Monette S, et al. Pleural puncture that excludes the ablation zone decreases the risk of pneumothorax after percutaneous microwave ablation in porcine lung. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26(7):1052–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Thoracic and Cardiac Surgery, The Second Hospital of Longyan, Beicheng Shuangyang West Road No. 8, Xinluo District, Longyan, 364000, Fujian, China

    Rongxing Liu, Qiurong Shen & Hongjun Lu

Authors
  1. Rongxing Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qiurong Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hongjun Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

(I) Conception and design: RL and QS. (II) Administrative support: QS. (III) Provision of study materials or patients: RL and HL. (IV) Collection and assembly of data: RL and HL. (V) Data analysis and interpretation: All authors. (VI) Manuscript writing: All authors. (VII) Final approval of manuscript: All authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qiurong Shen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Appendix table. The additional WORD file lists the keywords used in this study and detailed retrieval formula in databases.

Additional file 2.

Extracted Raw Data. The additional EXCEL file shows all the raw data extracted from the included articles and used for data analysis.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, R., Shen, Q. & Lu, H. The efficacy and safety of thermal ablation for patients with lung malignancy: a meta-analysis of 12 studies in China. J Cardiothorac Surg 17, 334 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-022-02090-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-022-02090-4

Keywords

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery

ISSN: 1749-8090

Contact us