Meta-analysis of cryoablation versus radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of malignant liver tumors

Figures & data

Figure 1. Flowchart of study inclusion.

Table 1. Characteristics of every study included in the meta-analysis.

Author	Country/year	Study design	Group	Patient age (years)	Number of Patients	Number of Tumors	Tumor size(cm)
Shen [19]	China/2015	Cohort	CRA	52.3 ± 11.2	52	84	0.7–5.9
			RFA	50.7 ± 12.4	56	100	0.8–6.1
Li [4]	China/2019	Cohort	CRA	53 ± 9	54	63	2.7 ± 1.0
			RFA	56 ± 10	65	78	2.5 ± 0.9
Adam [11]	France/2002	Cohort	CRA	60.1 ± 9.6	31	31	2.22 ± 1.05
			RFA	63.5 ± 9.9	33	33	2.8 ± 1.67
Wang [10]	China/2015	RCT	CRA	53.8 ± 9.587	180	199	≤4
			RFA	53.3 ± 8.905	180	189	≤4
Ko [14]	Korea/2020	Cohort	CRA	60.9 ± 9.7	25	NR	1.5 ± 0.4(1–2.5)
			RFA	59.6 ± 10	31	NR	2 ± 0.4(1.3–2.8)
Dunne [13]	USA/2014	Cohort	CRA	67.8 ± 10.7	25	NR	2.8(1.5–4.9)
			RFA	64.4 ± 10.8	22	NR	2(0.4–6.3)
Cha [12]	Korea/2019	Cohort	CRA	61(44–84)	61	NR	1.3(0.6–2.0)
			RFA	70(44–80)	50	NR	1.3(0.7–2.7)
Pan [17]	China/2018	Cohort	CRA	62 ± 5	38	42	1.1–5.8
			RFA	59 ± 6	40	44	1.0–5.4

CRA: cryoablation; RFA: radiofrequency ablation: NR: not reported.

Table 2. Outcome measures of every study included in the meta-analysis.

Author	Country/year	Study design	Group	Complication	Complete ablation rate	Local recurrence rate	1-year survival rate
Shen [19]	China/2015	Cohort	CRA	0/52	82/84	6/52	92.30%
			RFA	4/56	90/100	8/56	88.10%
Li [4]	China/2019	Cohort	CRA	6/54	89%	NR	87.7%
			RFA	3/65	94%	NR	93.6%
Adam [11]	France/2002	Cohort	CRA	9/31	69%	53%	73%
			RFA	8/33	76%	18%	60%
Wang [10]	China/2015	RCT	CRA	7/180	NR	5.6%	97%
			RFA	6/180	NR	10%	97%
Ko [14]	Korea/2020	Cohort	CRA	0/25	NR	NR	NR
			RFA	2/31	NR	NR	NR
Dunne [13]	USA/2014	Cohort	CRA	7/25	NR	NR	NR
			RFA	3/22	NR	NR	NR
Cha [12]	Korea/2019	Cohort	CRA	8/61	NR	11/61	NR
			RFA	14/50	NR	6/50	NR
Pan [17]	China/2018	Cohort	CRA	3/38	76.2%	NR	NR
			RFA	0/40	75%	NR	NR

CRA: cryoablation; RFA: radiofrequency ablation; NR: not reported.

Table 3. Assessment of randomized study quality.

Trial, year	Random sequence production	Allocation concealment	Blind method	Withdrawals	Score
Wang 2015 [10]	Adequate	Unclear	Inadequate	Description	4

Table 4. Assessment of nonrandomized study quality.

Trial, year Quality indicators from Newcastle–Ottawa scale
	1	2	3	4	5A	5B	6	7	8	Score
Shen 2015 [19]	Yes	Yes	Yes	NO	Yes	NO	Yes	Yes	Yes	7
Li 2019 [4]	Yes	Yes	NO	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NO	Yes	7
Adam 2002 [11]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NO	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	8
Ko 2020 [14]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	9
Dunne 2014 [13]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	9
Cha 2019 [12]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NO	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	8
Pan 2018 [17]	Yes	Yes	Yes	NO	Yes	Yes	Yes	NO	Yes	7

For cohort studies, CRA group was defined as exposed cohort; RFA group was defined as nonexposed cohort. 1 indicates exposed cohort truly representative; 2, nonexposed cohort drawn from the same community; 3, ascertainment of exposure; 4, outcome of interest not present at start; 5 A, cohorts comparable on basis of age; 5B, cohorts comparable on other factor (s); 6, quality of outcome assessment; 7, follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur; and 8, complete accounting for cohorts.

Figure 2. Forest plot for complications between CRA and RFA.

Figure 3. Forest plot for complete ablation rate between CRA and RFA.

Figure 4. Forest plot for local recurrence rate between CRA and RFA.

Figure 5. Forest plot for 1-year survival rate between CRA and RFA.

Shen LJ. Comparative analysis of treatment effect of primary hepatic carcinoma (PHC) by applying Ar-He cryoablation and radiofrequency radiation. J Med Imaging. 2015;25(07):1216–1220.

 Google Scholar

Li F, Chen F, Li W. Progress in ablation therapy of liver cancer. WCJD. 2017;25(27):2427–2432. doi: 10.11569/wcjd.v25.i27.2427.

 Google Scholar

Adam R, Hagopian EJ, Linhares M, et al. A comparison of percutaneous cryosurgery and percutaneous radiofrequency for unresectable hepatic malignancies. Arch Surg. 2002; 137(12):1332–1339; discussion 1340. discussion 1340. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.137.12.1332.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Wang C, Wang H, Yang W, et al. Multicenter randomized controlled trial of percutaneous cryoablation versus radiofrequency ablation in hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2015; 61(5):1579–1590. doi: 10.1002/hep.27548.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ko SE, Lee MW, Rhim H, et al. Comparison of procedure-related complications between percutaneous cryoablation and radiofrequency ablation for treating periductal hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Hyperthermia. 2020;37(1):1354–1361. doi: 10.1080/02656736.2020.1849824.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dunne RM, Shyn PB, Sung JC, et al. Percutaneous treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a comparison of the safety of cryoablation and radiofrequency ablation. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(4):632–638. Epub 2014 Jan 18. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.01.007.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cha SY, Kang TW, Min JH, et al. RF ablation versus cryoablation for small perivascular hepatocellular carcinoma: Propensity score analyses of Mid-Term outcomes. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2020; 43(3):434–444. Epub 2019 Dec 16. doi: 10.1007/s00270-019-02394-4.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pan JS, Ou B, Wang HH, et al. Clinical application of argon helium cryoablation and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of liver cancer. Lingnan Modern Clinics in Surgery. 2018;18(06):624–626.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

I confirm I understand the terms of the share upon reasonable request data policy, the DOI of our data is 10.6084/m9.figshare.24230857.