APP下载

射频消融与手术治疗结直肠癌肝转移疗效的Meta分析

2019-03-18刘向东苏松罗德陈鑫培周鹏程李波

中国医药导报 2019年2期
关键词:射频消融Meta分析

刘向东 苏松 罗德 陈鑫培 周鹏程 李波

[摘要] 目的 比较射频消融(RFA)与肝脏切除术(HR)在结直肠癌肝转移(CRLM)患者治疗中的作用。 方法 系统检索Cochrane library、PubMed、荷兰医学文摘(EMbase)、中国知网、万方数据库、维普数据库从建库至2018年5月关于比较RFA和HR治疗CRLM患者的临床对照研究,并对所有的纳入研究进行质量评价,采用Cochrane library提供的软件RevMan 5.3进行分析。 结果 最后纳入文献26篇,共包括3738例患者,其中RFA组1447例,HR组2291例。Meta分析结果显示:RFA组5年总生存率、5年无病生存率明显低于HR组(OR = 2.42,95%CI:1.64~3.57,P < 0.000 01;OR = 2.33,95%CI:1.37~3.98,P = 0.002);RFA组局部复发率、肝内复发率明显高于HR组(OR = 9.29,95%CI:6.88~12.54,P < 0.000 01;OR = 2.03,95%CI:1.45~2.83,P < 0.0001);RFA组术后总并发症发生率低于HR组(OR = 0.47,95%CI:0.29~0.76,P = 0.002)。 结论 RFA并发症发生率明显低于HR,但生存率较低,复发率较高。HR仍是CRLM首选的治疗方式。

[关键词] 结直肠癌肝转移;射频消融;肝脏切除术;Meta分析

[中图分类号] R657.3          [文献标识码] A          [文章编号] 1673-7210(2019)01(b)-0089-06

[Abstract] Objective To compare the therapeutic efficacy between radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and hepatic resection(HR) for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Methods Systematic literature search of clinical trials was carried out to compare RFA and HR for colorectal liver metastasis in Cochrane library, PubMed, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP from database inception to May 2018. The quality of the included studies was assessed and the data analysis was performed by software RevMan 5.3 from Cochrane library. Results Finally 26 trials including 3738 cases were included, with 1447 cases in RFA group and 2291 cases in HR group. The results of Meta-analysis showed: 5-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival were significantly lower in RFA group than HR group (OR = 2.42, 95%CI: 1.64-3.57, P < 0.000 01; OR = 2.33, 95%CI: 1.37-3.98, P = 0.002). Local recurrence and intrahepatic recurrence rates were significantly higher in RFA group than HR group (OR = 9.29, 95%CI: 6.88-12.54, P < 0.000 01; OR = 2.03, 95%CI: 1.45-2.83, P < 0.0001). RFA had significantly lower postoperative complication rate than HR group (OR = 0.47, 95%CI: 0.29-0.76, P = 0.002). Conclusion The complication rate in patients treated by RFA is significantly lower than HR, but survival rate is lower and recurrence rate is higher by RFA than HR. HR is still the preferred treatment for CRLM.

[Key words] Colorectal liver metastasis; Radiofrequency ablation; Hepatic resection; Meta-analysis

結肠直肠癌是胃肠道中常见的恶性肿瘤,目前,其发病率和死亡率居于恶性肿瘤的第3位和第4位[1]。15%~25%的结直肠癌患者在确诊时即合并有肝转移,另有15%~25%的患者在行结直肠癌根治术后发生肝转移[2]。肝脏切除术(HR)是目前治疗结直肠癌肝转移(CRLM)的主要方法,接受根治性手术切除的患者,5年生存率约为50%[3]。然而,绝大多数患者由于转移灶数量过多、残余肝脏体积不足、病灶临近重要结构等不能接受根治性手术切除治疗[4]。随着微创消融技术的逐步发展,射频消融(RFA)越来越多地被应用于CRLM患者的治疗。已有研究报道RFA相对于HR治疗肝脏肿瘤可以降低并发症发生率,缩短住院时间[5]。但RFA存在缺乏治疗后的组织病理学评估和精准度较低、复发率较高等问题。目前,国内外对于CRLM患者治疗方式的选择尚存在争议,本研究旨在对已发表的关于RFA和HR治疗CRLM患者的文章进行荟萃分析,为临床治疗方式的选择提供依据。

1 资料与方法

1.1 文献检索

计算机检索Cochrane library、PubMed、荷兰医学文摘(EMbase)、中国知网、万方数据库、维普数据库从建库至2018年5月关于比较RFA和HR治疗CRLM患者的临床对照研究。英文检索词包括:“colorectal liver metastases”“radiofrequency ablation”“hepatic resection”“comparative study”;中文检索词包括:“结直肠癌肝转移”“射频消融”“肝切除”“对比研究”。

1.2 纳入标准

①首诊为结直肠癌肝转移的患者;②治疗采取RFA和HR,并进行比较,且数据完整;③至少有1项评价指标。

1.3 排除標准

①合并可能影响研究结果的其他疾病;②CRLM患者行RFA+HR治疗;③单独评估RFA或HR的结果,无对照;④无完整的比较数据。

1.4 资料提取与文献质量评价

2位评价者独立进行文献检索、资料提取并进行质量评价,如遇到不一致的情况,则通过双方讨论或征求第3位评价者的意见。采用文献质量评价量表(Newcastle-Ottowa Scale,NOS)对纳入文献质量进行评价。

1.5 统计学方法

应用Cochrane协作网提供的RevMan 5.3软件对数据进行分析。计数资料使用相对危险度(odds risk,OR)及95%CI进行描述,以P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。各研究间的异质性分析采用χ2检验,I2 ≤ 50%选用固定效应模型,I2 > 50%选用随机效应模型。

2 结果

2.1 文献检索结果

检索得到的文件根据纳入和排除标准逐一筛选,最后纳入文献26篇[6-31]。共包括3738例患者,其中RFA组1447例,HR组2291例。见表1。

2.2 分析结果

2.2.1 生存率比较  15篇[7-10,12-14,16-18,21,24-25,30-31]报道了生存率资料。①5年总生存率:I2结果提示各研究间有统计学异质性(P < 0.0001,I2 = 68%),选择随机效应模型进行分析,结果显示HR组患者的5年总生存率明显高于RFA组患者(OR = 2.42, 95%CI:1.64~3.57,P < 0.000 01);②5年无病生存率:I2结果提示各研究间有统计学异质性(P = 0.007,I2 = 60%),选择随机效应模型进行分析,结果显示HR组患者的5年无病生存率明显高于RFA组患者(OR = 2.33,95%CI:1.37~3.98,P = 0.002)。

2.2.2 复发率比较  17篇[6-10,14-15,18-21,23-26,29-31]报道了复发率资料。①局部复发率:I2结果提示各研究间无统计学异质性(P = 0.24,I2 = 18%),选择固定效应模型进行分析,结果显示RFA组患者的局部复发率明显高于HR组患者(OR = 9.29, 95%CI:6.88~12.54,P < 0.000 01);②肝内复发率:I2结果提示各研究间有统计学异质性(P = 0.01,I2 = 52%),选择随机效应模型进行分析,结果显示RFA组患者的肝内复发率明显高于HR组患者(OR = 2.03, 95%CI:1.45~2.83,P < 0.0001);③肝外复发率:I2结果提示各研究间有统计学异质性(P = 0.009,I2 = 55%),选择随机效应模型进行分析,结果显示两组间差异无统计学意义(OR = 1.04,95%CI:0.73~1.49,P = 0.83)。

2.2.3 并发症比较  18篇[7-8,10-11,14-16,19-21,23,25-31]报道了并发症资料,RFA组与HR组相比,总并发症发生率明显降低(OR = 0.47,95%CI:0.29~0.76,P = 0.002)。其中肺部、切口、心血管、肠道、胆道并发症发生率,RFA组均低于HR组(P < 0.05)。见表2。

2.2.4 发表偏倚  运用RevMan 5.3软件对主要指标5年总生存率和5年无病生存率绘制漏斗图,结果显示漏斗图两侧对称,表明不存在发表偏倚。

3 讨论

结直肠癌肝转移一直是结直肠癌患者治疗的难点问题,也是其主要的死亡原因[32]。HR是治疗CRLM患者的主要治疗方式,但大部分患者都不能接受根治性手术治疗。RFA作为一种新型微创治疗手段,拥有操作简单、创伤小、并发症少等优点,目前已逐步应用于临床作为CRLM患者的非手术治疗措施[18]。然而,目前对于两种治疗方式的选择和疗效评价,国内外指南尚无明确推荐。

本次Meta分析结果显示,HR治疗的CRLM患者5年总生存率和5年无病生存率明显高于RFA治疗的患者,其主要原因可能与HR能达到更合理、安全的治疗边界有关。手术治疗时,切缘距肿瘤边界一般在1 cm以上,可有效地切除肿瘤组织,提高疗效。而对于RFA治疗的患者,要达到1 cm以上的安全治疗边界相对来说比较困难。因此,RFA相比HR更容易发生肿瘤组织的残留,从而降低患者的生存率。对于复发率的研究,HR较RFA复发率低。RFA肿瘤复发的主要影响因素是热沉和病灶大小,病灶位于直径3~4 cm的血管附近会增加热沉的发生风险,血流会很快散热,导致不能实现完全消融,增加了复发的风险。另外,目前的RFA技术最大消融区域为5 cm,对于直径超过3 cm的肿瘤可能会存在部分肿瘤细胞残留,这是复发率增加的另一个可能因素[33]。然而,在并发症发生率上,RFA相对于HR并发症发生率更低,这可能与RFA治疗对患者创伤小、术后所需要住院时间短等原因有关。

本研究局限性在于,所有的纳入文献都是回顾性分析,总体质量不高,不可避免地会出现选择偏倚。比如在患者选择上,大多数医院把RFA作为一种肿瘤的替代治疗方案,这种选择标准可能会影响RFA治疗后复发率和生存率的真实性。这也是纳入文献产生异质性的原因之一。

综上所述,与HR相比,RFA并发症发生率更低,但具有复发率更高、生存率更低的缺点。因此,就生存率来讲,HR仍是CRLM患者首选治疗方式,由于选择偏倚的存在,此结论需要更多的大样本临床随机对照试验进一步验证。

[参考文献]

[1]  李道娟,李倩,贺宇彤.结直肠癌流行病学趋势[J].肿瘤防治研究,2015,42(3):305-310.

[2]  蔡建强,蔡三军,秦新裕,等.结直肠癌肝轉移诊断和综合治疗指南(2016)[J].中国实用外科杂志,2016,36(8):858-869.

[3]  van der Geest LG,Lam-Boer J,Koopman M,et al. Nationwide trends in incidence,treatment and survival of colorectal cancer patients with synchronous metastases [J]. Clin Exp Metastasis,2015,32(5):457-465.

[4]  Clancy C,Burke JP,Barry M,et al. A meta-analysis to determine the effect of primary tumor resection for stage Ⅳcolorectal cancer with unresectable metastases on patient survival [J]. Ann Surg Oncol,2014,21(12):3900-3908.

[5]  Kageyama K,Yamamoto A,Okuma T,et al. Radiofrequency ablation of liver tumors in combination with local OK-432 injection prolongs survival and suppresses distant tumor growth in the rabbit model with intra-and extrahepatic VX2 tumors [J]. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol,2013,36(5):1383-1392.

[6]  Abdalla EK,Vauthey JN,Ellis LM,et al. Recurrence and outcomes following hepatic resection,radiofrequency ablation,and combined resection/ablation for colorectal liver metastases [J]. Ann Surg,2004,239(6):818-825.

[7]  Agcaoglu O,Aliyev S,Karabulut K,et al. Complementary use of resection and radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases:an analysis of 395 patients [J]. World J Surg,2013,37(6):1333-1339.

[8]  Aliyev S,Agcaoglu O,Aksoy E,et al. Efficacy of laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of patients with small solitary colorectal liver metastasis [J]. Surgery,2013,154(3):556-562.

[9]  Aloia TA,Vauthey JN,Loyer EM,et al. Solitary colorectal liver metastasis:resection determines outcome [J]. Arch Surg,2006,141(5):460-466.

[10]  Berber E,Tsinberg M,Tellioglu G,et al. Resection versus laparoscopic radiofrequency thermal ablation of solitary colorectal liver metastasis [J]. J Gastrointest Surg Off J Soc Surg Aliment Tract,2008,12(11):1967-1972.

[11]  Curley SA. Outcomes after surgical treatment of colorectal cancer liver metastases [J]. Semin Oncol,2005,32(9):109-111.

[12]  Gleisner AL,Choti MA,Assumpcao L,et al. Colorectal liver metastases:recurrence and survival following hepatic resection,radiofrequency ablation,and combined resection-radiofrequency ablation [J]. Arch Surg,2008,143(12):1204-1212.

[13]  He N,Jin QN,Wang D,et al. Radiofrequency Ablation vs. Hepatic Resection for Resectable Colorectal Liver Metastases [J]. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci,2016,36(4):514-518.

[14]  Hur H,Ko YT,Min BS,et al. Comparative study of resection and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of solitary colorectal liver metastases [J]. Am J Surg,2009, 197(6):728-736.

[15]  Jasarovic D,Stojanovic D,Mitrovic N,et al. Resection or radiofrequency ablation of colorectal liver metastasis [J]. Vojnosanitet Pregled Mil Med Pharm Rev,2014,71(6):542-546.

[16]  Kim KH,Yoon YS,Yu CS,et al. Comparative analysis of radiofrequency ablation and surgical resection for colorectal liver metastases [J]. J Korean Surg Soc,2011,81(1):25-34.

[17]  Ko S,Jo H,Yun S,et al. Comparative analysis of radiofrequency ablation and resection for resectable colorectal liver metastases [J]. World J Gastroenterol,2014,20(2):525-531.

[18]  Lee WS,Yun SH,Chun HK,et al. Clinical outcomes of hepatic resection and radiofrequency ablation in patients with solitary colorectal liver metastasis [J]. J Clin Gastroenterol,2008,42(8):945-949.

[19]  Lee KH,Kim HO,Yoo CH,et al. Comparison of radiofrequency ablation and resection for hepatic metastasis from colorectal cancer [J]. Korean J Gastroenterol Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe Chi,2012,59(3):218-223.

[20]  Lee BC,Lee HG,Park IJ,et al. The role of radiofrequency ablation for treatment of metachronous isolated hepatic metastasis from colorectal cancer [J]. Medicine,2016, 95(39):e4999.

[21]  McKay A,Fradette K,Lipschitz J. Long-term outcomes following hepatic resection and radiofrequency ablation of colorectal liver metastases [J]. HPB Surg,2009,2009:346 863.

[22]  Oshowo A,Gillams A,Harrison E,et al. Comparison of resection and radiofrequency ablation for treatment of solitary colorectal liver metastases [J]. Br J Surg,2003, 90(10):1240-1243.

[23]  Otto G,Duber C,Hoppe-Lotichius M,et al. Radiofrequency ablation as first-line treatment in patients with early colorectal liver metastases amenable to surgery [J]. Ann Surg,2010,251(5):796-803.

[24]  Park IJ,Kim HC,Yu CS,et al. Radiofrequency ablation for metachronous liver metastasis from colorectal cancer after curative surgery [J]. Ann Surg Oncol,2008,15(1):227-232.

[25]  Reuter NP,Woodall CE,Scoggins CR,et al. Radiofrequency ablation vs. resection for hepatic colorectal metastasis:therapeutically equivalent [J]. J Gastrointest Surg,2009,13(3):486-491.

[26]  White RR,Avital I,Sofocleous CT,et al. Rates and patterns of recurrence for percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and open wedge resection for solitary colorectal liver metastasis [J]. J Gastrointest Surg Off J Soc Surg Aliment Tract,2007,11(3):256-263.

[27]  刘旭忠,韩松.射频消融和手术切除对孤立性结直肠癌肝转移患者生活质量及疗效的改善作用[J].国际医药卫生导报,2016,22(15):2291-2293.

[28]  卢欣,李孝成,吴永融.手术切除与射频消融治疗结直肠癌肝转移的对比研究[J].实用临床医药杂志,2015, 19(15):62-64.

[29]  周雪玲,何晓兰,蔡蕾,等.结直肠癌肝转移射频消融与手术切除疗效比较[J].中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志,2017,6(3):212-215.

[30]  聂勇,杨绥冲,常浩生,等.射频消融与手术治疗结直肠癌肝转移疗效比较[J].肝胆胰外科杂志,2013,25(4):313-315.

[31]  邵子力,吴健,陈敏山,等.射频消融与手术切除治疗结直肠癌肝转移的疗效比较[J].广东医学,2012,33(10):1410-1413.

[32]  LeGolvan MP,Resnick M. Pathobiology of colorectal cancer hepatic metastases with an emphasis on prognostic factors [J]. J Surg Oncol,2010,102(8):898-908.

[33]  Berber E,Siperstein A. Local recurrence after laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation of liver tumors:an analysis of 1032 tumors [J]. Ann Surg Oncol,2008,15(10):2757-2764.

(收稿日期:2018-05-18  本文編辑:金   虹)

猜你喜欢

射频消融Meta分析
心脏瓣膜置换同期行射频消融治疗房颤的术中配合护理分析
结直肠进展腺瘤发生率的Meta分析
血小板与冷沉淀联合输注在大出血临床治疗中应用的Meta分析
细辛脑注射液治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期疗效的Meta分析
中药熏洗治疗类风湿关节炎疗效的Meta分析
丹红注射液治疗特发性肺纤维化临床疗效及安全性的Meta分析
多索茶碱联合布地奈德治疗支气管哮喘的Meta分析及治疗策略
探讨心脏手术周期行射频消融治疗房颤的中长期手术疗效
特发性室性心律失常射频导管消融治疗62例分析
心脏瓣膜手术同期房颤射频消融的疗效观察