Microwave coagulation for liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Liver metastases (i.e. secondary hepatic malignancies) are significantly more common than primary liver cancer. Long-term survival after radical surgical treatment is approximately 50%. For people in whom resection for cure is not feasible, other treatments must be considered. One treatment option is microwave coagulation utilising electromagnetic waves. It involves placing an electrode into a lesion under ultrasound or computed tomography guidance.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of microwave coagulation versus no intervention, other ablation methods, or systemic treatments in people with liver metastases regardless of the location of the primary tumour.

SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest date of search was 14 April 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials assessing beneficial or harmful effects of microwave coagulation and its comparators in people with liver metastases, irrespective of the location of the primary tumour. We included trials no matter the outcomes reported.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: all-cause mortality at the last follow-up and time to mortality; health-related quality of life (HRQoL); and any adverse events or complications. Our secondary outcomes were: cancer mortality; disease-free survival; failure to clear liver metastases; recurrence of liver metastases; time to progression of liver metastases; and tumour response measures. We used risk ratios (RR) and hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to present the results. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We used GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS: Three randomised clinical trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The control interventions differed in the three trials; therefore, meta-analyses were not possible. The trials were at high risk of bias. The certainty of evidence of the assessed outcomes in the three comparisons was very low. Data on our prespecified outcomes were either missing or not reported. Microwave coagulation plus conventional transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus conventional TACE alone One trial, conducted in China, randomised 50 participants (mean age 60 years, 76% males) with liver metastases from various primary sites. Authors reported that the follow-up period was at least one month. The trial reported adverse events or complications in the experimental group only and for tumour response measures. There were no dropouts in the trial. The trial did not report on any other outcomes. Microwave ablation versus conventional surgery One trial, conducted in Japan, randomised 40 participants (mean age 61 years, 53% males) with multiple liver metastases of colorectal cancer. Ten participants were excluded after randomisation (six from the experimental and four from the control group); thus, the trial analyses included 30 participants. Follow-up was three years. The reported number of deaths from all causes was 9/14 included participants in the microwave group versus 12/16 included participants in the conventional surgery group. The mean overall survival was 27 months in the microwave ablation and 25 months in the conventional surgery group. The three-year overall survival was 14% with microwave ablation and 23% with conventional surgery, resulting in an HR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.39 to 2.15). The reported frequency of adverse events or complications was comparable between the two groups, except for the required blood transfusion, which was more common in the conventional surgery group. There was no intervention-related mortality. Disease-free survival was 11.3 months in the microwave ablationgroup and 13.3 months in the conventional surgery group. The trial did not report on HRQoL. Microwave ablation versus radiofrequency ablation One trial, conducted in Germany, randomised 50 participants (mean age 62.8 years, 46% males) who were followed for 24 months. Two-year mortality showed an RR of 0.62 (95% CI 0.26 to 1.47). The trial reported that, by two years, 76.9% of participants in the microwave ablationgroup and 62.5% of participants in the radiofrequency ablation group survived (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.73). The trial reported no deaths or major complications during the procedures in either group. There were two minor complications only in the radiofrequency ablation group (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.67). The trial reported technical efficacy in 100% of procedures in both groups. Distant recurrence was reported for 10 participants in the microwave ablation group and nine participants in the radiofrequency ablation group (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.08). No participant in the microwave ablation group demonstrated local progression at 12 months, while that occurred in two participants in the radiofrequency ablation group (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.67). The trial did not report on HRQoL. One trial reported partial support by Medicor (MMS Medicor Medical Supplies GmbH, Kerpen, Germany) for statistical analysis. The remaining two trials did not provide information on funding. We identified four ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of microwave ablation in addition to conventional TACE compared with conventional TACE alone on adverse events or complications. We do not know if microwave ablation compared with conventional surgery may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality. We do not know the effect of microwave ablation compared with radiofrequency ablation on all-cause mortality and adverse events or complications either. Data on all-cause mortality and time to mortality, HRQoL, adverse events or complications, cancer mortality, disease-free survival, failure to clear liver metastases, recurrence of liver metastases, time to progression of liver metastases, and tumour response measures were either insufficient or were lacking. In light of the current inconclusive evidence and the substantial gaps in data, the pursuit of additional good-quality, large randomised clinical trials is not only justified but also essential to elucidate the efficacy and comparative benefits of microwave ablation in relation to various interventions for liver metastases. The current version of the review, in comparison to the previous one, incorporates two new trials in two additional microwave ablation comparisons: 1. in addition to conventional TACE versus conventional TACE alone and 2. versus radiofrequency ablation.