본문으로 건너뛰기
← 뒤로

Comparative outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy versus radiofrequency ablation in hepatocellular carcinoma within Milan criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

메타분석 1/5 보강
Frontiers in oncology 📖 저널 OA 100% 2021: 15/15 OA 2022: 98/98 OA 2023: 60/60 OA 2024: 189/189 OA 2025: 1004/1004 OA 2026: 620/620 OA 2021~2026 2025 Vol.15() p. 1644001
Retraction 확인
출처

PICO 자동 추출 (휴리스틱, conf 2/4)

유사 논문
P · Population 대상 환자/모집단
1505 patients were included.
I · Intervention 중재 / 시술
추출되지 않음
C · Comparison 대조 / 비교
추출되지 않음
O · Outcome 결과 / 결론
The incidence of adverse events showed no statistical difference between SBRT and RFA (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.53-1.01, P = 0.05). [CONCLUSION] SBRT and RFA exhibit comparable efficacy and safety profiles in managing HCC within the Milan criteria.

Jing J, Zhong F, Zhang H, Luo G, Du Z

📝 환자 설명용 한 줄

[OBJECTIVE] To systematically compare the clinical efficacy and adverse events between stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in treating hepatocellular carcinoma

🔬 핵심 임상 통계 (초록에서 자동 추출 — 원문 검증 권장)
  • p-value P = 0.05
  • HR 0.98
  • RR 0.73
  • 연구 설계 meta-analysis

이 논문을 인용하기

↓ .bib ↓ .ris
APA Jing J, Zhong F, et al. (2025). Comparative outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy versus radiofrequency ablation in hepatocellular carcinoma within Milan criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. Frontiers in oncology, 15, 1644001. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2025.1644001
MLA Jing J, et al.. "Comparative outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy versus radiofrequency ablation in hepatocellular carcinoma within Milan criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.." Frontiers in oncology, vol. 15, 2025, pp. 1644001.
PMID 40963859 ↗

Abstract

[OBJECTIVE] To systematically compare the clinical efficacy and adverse events between stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) within the Milan criteria through a meta-analysis.

[METHODS] A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science from database inception to May 1, 2025, for studies comparing SBRT and RFA in HCC patients meeting the Milan criteria. Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4 software for meta-analysis.

[RESULTS] Ten studies (9 retrospective and 1 randomized controlled trial) involving 1505 patients were included. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS: HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.72-1.32, P = 0.87) and progression-free survival (PFS: HR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.67-1.06, P = 0.14) demonstrated no significant differences between SBRT and RFA. Subgroup analyses based on tumor diameter, tumor origin type, and study design revealed no significant differences in pooled HRs for OS or PFS. The incidence of adverse events showed no statistical difference between SBRT and RFA (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.53-1.01, P = 0.05).

[CONCLUSION] SBRT and RFA exhibit comparable efficacy and safety profiles in managing HCC within the Milan criteria.

🏷️ 키워드 / MeSH 📖 같은 키워드 OA만

같은 제1저자의 인용 많은 논문 (1)

🏷️ 같은 키워드 · 무료전문 — 이 논문 MeSH/keyword 기반

🟢 PMC 전문 열기