-
Something wrong with this record ?
Endoluminal radiofrequency ablation in patients with malignant biliary obstruction: a randomised trial
J. Jarosova, L. Zarivnijova, I. Cibulkova, J. Mares, P. Macinga, A. Hujova, P. Falt, O. Urban, J. Hajer, J. Spicak, T. Hucl
Language English Country England, Great Britain
Document type Randomized Controlled Trial, Journal Article
NLK
ProQuest Central
from 1960-03-01 to 6 months ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
from 1960-03-01 to 6 months ago
- MeSH
- Cholangiocarcinoma * MeSH
- Cholestasis * etiology surgery MeSH
- Catheter Ablation * adverse effects methods MeSH
- Quality of Life MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Pancreatic Neoplasms * complications surgery MeSH
- Bile Duct Neoplasms * complications surgery MeSH
- Radiofrequency Ablation * MeSH
- Aged, 80 and over MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Stents adverse effects MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic surgery MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged, 80 and over MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
BACKGROUND: Endoluminal radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been promoted as palliative treatment for patients with cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in order to improve biliary drainage and eventually prolong survival. No high level evidence is, however, available on this technique. DESIGN: In this randomised controlled study, we compared endoluminal RFA plus stenting with stenting alone (control group) in patients with malignant biliary obstruction; metal stents were primarily placed. Primary outcome was overall survival; secondary outcomes were stent patency, quality of life and adverse events. In a superiority design, survival was assumed to be doubled by RFA as compared with 6.4 months in the control group (n=280). RESULTS: A total of 161 patients (male:female 90:71, mean age 71±9 years) were randomised before recruitment was terminated for futility after an interim analysis. Eighty-five patients had CCA (73 hilar, 12 distal) and 76 had pancreatic cancer. There was no difference in survival in both subgroups: for patients with CCA, median survival was 10.5 months (95% CI 6.7 to 18.3) in the RFA group vs 10.6 months (95% CI 9.0 to 24.8), p=0.58)) in the control group. In the subgroup with pancreatic cancer, median survival was 6.4 months (95% CI 4.3 to 9.7) for the RFA vs 7.7 months (95% CI 5.6 to 11.3), p=0.73) for the control group. No benefit was seen in the RFA group with regard to stent patency (at 12 months 40% vs 36% in CCA and 66% vs 65% in PDAC), and quality of life was unchanged by either treatment and comparable between the groups. Adverse events occurred in seven patients in each groups. CONCLUSION: A combination of endoluminal RFA and stenting was not superior to stenting alone in prolonging survival or improving stent patency in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03166436.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc24000618
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20240213093303.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 240109s2023 enk f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1136/gutjnl-2023-329700 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)37652677
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a enk
- 100 1_
- $a Jarosova, Jana $u Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Praha, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000300100637
- 245 10
- $a Endoluminal radiofrequency ablation in patients with malignant biliary obstruction: a randomised trial / $c J. Jarosova, L. Zarivnijova, I. Cibulkova, J. Mares, P. Macinga, A. Hujova, P. Falt, O. Urban, J. Hajer, J. Spicak, T. Hucl
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND: Endoluminal radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been promoted as palliative treatment for patients with cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in order to improve biliary drainage and eventually prolong survival. No high level evidence is, however, available on this technique. DESIGN: In this randomised controlled study, we compared endoluminal RFA plus stenting with stenting alone (control group) in patients with malignant biliary obstruction; metal stents were primarily placed. Primary outcome was overall survival; secondary outcomes were stent patency, quality of life and adverse events. In a superiority design, survival was assumed to be doubled by RFA as compared with 6.4 months in the control group (n=280). RESULTS: A total of 161 patients (male:female 90:71, mean age 71±9 years) were randomised before recruitment was terminated for futility after an interim analysis. Eighty-five patients had CCA (73 hilar, 12 distal) and 76 had pancreatic cancer. There was no difference in survival in both subgroups: for patients with CCA, median survival was 10.5 months (95% CI 6.7 to 18.3) in the RFA group vs 10.6 months (95% CI 9.0 to 24.8), p=0.58)) in the control group. In the subgroup with pancreatic cancer, median survival was 6.4 months (95% CI 4.3 to 9.7) for the RFA vs 7.7 months (95% CI 5.6 to 11.3), p=0.73) for the control group. No benefit was seen in the RFA group with regard to stent patency (at 12 months 40% vs 36% in CCA and 66% vs 65% in PDAC), and quality of life was unchanged by either treatment and comparable between the groups. Adverse events occurred in seven patients in each groups. CONCLUSION: A combination of endoluminal RFA and stenting was not superior to stenting alone in prolonging survival or improving stent patency in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03166436.
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 _2
- $a senioři nad 80 let $7 D000369
- 650 _2
- $a kvalita života $7 D011788
- 650 12
- $a katetrizační ablace $x škodlivé účinky $x metody $7 D017115
- 650 12
- $a radiofrekvenční ablace $7 D000078703
- 650 12
- $a cholangiokarcinom $7 D018281
- 650 12
- $a nádory slinivky břišní $x komplikace $x chirurgie $7 D010190
- 650 _2
- $a stenty $x škodlivé účinky $7 D015607
- 650 12
- $a cholestáza $x etiologie $x chirurgie $7 D002779
- 650 12
- $a nádory žlučových cest $x komplikace $x chirurgie $7 D001650
- 650 _2
- $a žlučové cesty intrahepatální $x chirurgie $7 D001653
- 650 _2
- $a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
- 655 _2
- $a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Zarivnijova, Lea $u Department of Internal Medicine II Gastroenterology and Geriatrics, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Cibulkova, Ivana $u Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Praha, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Mares, Jan $u Department of Data Analysis, Statistics and Artificial Intelligence, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Praha, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Macinga, Peter $u Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Praha, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Hujova, Alzbeta $u Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Praha, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Falt, Premysl $u Department of Internal Medicine II Gastroenterology and Geriatrics, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Urban, Ondrej $u Department of Internal Medicine II Gastroenterology and Geriatrics, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Hajer, Jan $u Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Praha, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Spicak, Julius $u Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Praha, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Hucl, Tomas $u Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Praha, Czech Republic tomas.hucl@ikem.cz
- 773 0_
- $w MED00009778 $t Gut $x 1468-3288 $g Roč. 72, č. 12 (2023), s. 2286-2293
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37652677 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20240109 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20240213093300 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 2049333 $s 1210312
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2023 $b 72 $c 12 $d 2286-2293 $e 20231124 $i 1468-3288 $m Gut $n Gut $x MED00009778
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20240109