Radiofrequency versus Ethanol Ablation for Treating Predominantly Cystic Thyroid Nodules: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Korean Journal of Radiology 2015³â 16±Ç 6È£ 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 ¡¾ 11.5% for RFA (n = 22) and 82.4 ¡¾ 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.
Å°¿öµå
Ultrasound, Radiofrequency, Ethanol, Predominantly cystic thyroid nodule, Thyroid
KMID :
0880420150160061332
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸
À¯È¿¼º°á°ú(Recomendation)
The mean volume reduction was 87.5 ¡¾ 11.5% for RFA (n = 22) and 82.4 ¡¾ 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.