Survival outcomes of radiofrequency ablation compared with surgery in patients with early-stage primary non-small-cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: This study compared the overall survival (OS) of patients with early-stage primary non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus surgery.

Methods: A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register, and all available Chinese databases to identify relevant publications from inception to April 2019. This meta-analysis compared hazard ratios (HRs) for OS. A multivariate fixed effects model was used to perform a meta-analysis to compare survival between treatments.

Results: Six retrospective studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Compared with surgery, RFA was associated with a similar long-term OS. The HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 2-, 3- and 5-year OS were 1.74 [0.82, 3.71], 1.15 [0.65, 2.02] and 2.69 [0.41, 17.47], respectively, while those of the pooled data were 1.47 [0.94, 2.32] in patients with early-stage primary NSCLC.

Conclusions: RFA did not differ significantly from surgery in terms of the 5-year OS in patients with early-stage primary NSCLC. Randomized, controlled clinical trials are warranted to compare these two treatments.

Keywords: Meta-analysis; Non-small-cell lung cancer; Overall survival; Radiofrequency ablation; Surgery.