Radiofrequency versus Ethanol Ablation for Treating Predominantly Cystic Thyroid Nodules: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Korean Journal of Radiology 2015년 16권 6호 p.1332 ~ p.1340

:Baek Jung-Hwan :Ha Eun-Ju/:Choi Young-Jun/:Sung Jin-Yong/:Kim Jae-Kyun/:Shong Young-Kee

Abstract

Objective: To compare single-session radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and ethanol ablation (EA) for treating predominantly cystic thyroid nodules (PCTNs).

Materials and Methods: This single-blind, randomized trial was approved by the Institutional Review Board of two centers and informed consent was obtained from all patients before enrollment. Fifty patients with a single PCTN (cystic portion less than 90% and greater than 50%) were randomly assigned to be treated by either RFA (25 patients) or EA (25 patients) at two hospitals. The primary outcome was the tumor volume reduction ratio (%) at the six-month follow-up and the superiority margin was set at 13% (RFA minus EA). Analysis was performed primarily in an intention-to-treat manner. The secondary outcomes were the therapeutic success rate, improvement of symptomatic and cosmetic problems, and the number of major complications.

Results: The mean volume reduction was 87.5 ± 11.5% for RFA (n = 22) and 82.4 ± 28.6% for EA (n = 24) (p = 0.710; mean difference [95% confidence interval], 5.1% [-8.0 to 18.2]), indicating no significant difference. Regarding the secondary outcomes, therapeutic success (p = 0.490), mean symptom (p = 0.205) and cosmetic scores (p = 0.710) showed no difference. There were no major complications in either group (p > 0.99).

Conclusion: The therapeutic efficacy of RFA is not superior to that of EA; therefore, EA might be preferable as the first-line treatment for PCTNs.

키워드

Ultrasound, Radiofrequency, Ethanol, Predominantly cystic thyroid nodule, Thyroid
원문 및 링크아웃 정보
등재저널 정보
SCI(E) MEDLINE 학술진흥재단(KCI) KoreaMed 대한의학회 회원 
주제코드
주제명(Target field)
연구대상(Population)
연구참여(Sample size)
대상성별(Gender)
질병특성(Condition Category)
연구환경(Setting)
연구설계(Study Design)
연구기간(Period)
중재방법(Intervention Type)
중재명칭(Intervention Name)
키워드(Keyword)
유효성결과(Recomendation)
The mean volume reduction was 87.5 ± 11.5% for RFA (n = 22) and 82.4 ± 28.6% for EA (n = 24) (p = 0.710; mean difference [95% confidence interval], 5.1% [-8.0 to 18.2]), indicating no significant difference; the therapeutic efficacy of RFA is not superior to that of EA, and that EA is simpler and less expensive than RFA, EA may be preferable as the first-line treatment option for PCTNs.
연구비지원(Fund Source)
근거수준평가(Evidence Hierarchy)
출판년도(Year)
참여저자수(Authors)
대표저자
KCD코드
ICD 03
건강보험코드