Department of Gastroenterology, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Yangpu District, Shanghai, China.
Department of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Jul;94(1):91-100.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.12.016. Epub 2020 Dec 24.
We sought to compare the efficacy and safety between endoscopic radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and stent placement alone in patients with unresectable extrahepatic biliary cancer (EBC).
In this randomized controlled trial, patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) or ampullary cancer who were unsuitable for surgery were recruited from 3 tertiary centers. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to RFA plus plastic stent placement (RFA group) or plastic stent placement alone (stent placement alone group) in a 1:1 ratio. Both groups underwent 2 scheduled interventions with an interval of approximately 3 months. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS).
Altogether, 174 participants completed the 2 index endoscopic interventions. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were noted between the 2 groups. The median OS was significantly higher in the RFA group (14.3 vs 9.2 months; hazard ratio, .488; 95% confidence interval, .351-.678; P < .001). A survival benefit was also shown in patients with CCA (13.3 vs 9.2 months; hazard ratio, .546; 95% confidence interval, .386-.771; P < .001). However, no significant between-group differences were found in jaundice control or stent patency duration. The postprocedural Karnofsky performance scores were significantly higher in the RFA group until 9 months (all P < .001). Adverse events were comparable between the 2 groups (27.6% vs 19.5%, P = .211), except for acute cholecystitis, which was more frequently observed in the RFA group (9 vs 0, P = .003).
Compared with stent placement alone, additional RFA may improve OS and quality of life of patients with inoperable primary EBC who do not undergo systemic treatments. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01844245.).
我们旨在比较内镜射频消融(RFA)联合支架置入与单纯支架置入治疗不可切除的肝外胆管癌(EBC)患者的疗效和安全性。
本随机对照试验纳入了 3 家三级中心因局部晚期或转移性胆管癌(CCA)或壶腹癌而不适合手术的患者。符合条件的患者以 1:1 的比例随机分配至 RFA 联合塑料支架置入(RFA 组)或单纯支架置入(单纯支架组)。两组均接受 2 次计划干预,间隔约 3 个月。主要结局是总生存期(OS)。
共 174 名参与者完成了 2 次指数内镜介入治疗。两组患者的基线特征无显著差异。RFA 组的中位 OS 显著高于单纯支架组(14.3 个月比 9.2 个月;风险比,0.488;95%置信区间,0.351-0.678;P<0.001)。在 CCA 患者中也显示出生存获益(13.3 个月比 9.2 个月;风险比,0.546;95%置信区间,0.386-0.771;P<0.001)。然而,两组在黄疸控制或支架通畅时间方面无显著差异。RFA 组的术后 Karnofsky 表现评分在 9 个月内显著高于单纯支架组(均 P<0.001)。两组不良事件发生率相当(27.6%比 19.5%,P=0.211),但 RFA 组更常发生急性胆囊炎(9 例比 0 例,P=0.003)。
与单纯支架置入相比,对于未接受系统治疗的不可切除的原发性 EBC 患者,额外的 RFA 可能改善其 OS 和生活质量。(临床试验注册号:NCT01844245。)