Endoscopic radiofrequency ablation plus plastic stent placement versus stent placement alone for unresectable extrahepatic biliary cancer: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Dao-Jian Gao,Jian-Feng Yang,Shu-Ren Ma,Jun Wu,Tian-Tian Wang,Hang-Bin Jin,Ming-Xing Xia,Ying-Chun Zhang,Hong-Zhang Shen,Xin Ye,Xiao-Feng Zhang,Bing Hu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2020.12.016
IF: 10.396
2021-07-01
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Abstract:<h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Background and aims</h3><p>To compare the efficacy and safety between endoscopic radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and stent placement alone in patients with unresectable extrahepatic biliary cancer (EBC).</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Methods</h3><p>In this randomized controlled trial, patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) or ampullary cancer (AC) who were unsuitable for surgery were recruited from 3 tertiary centers. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to the RFA plus plastic stent placement (RFA group) or the plastic stent placement alone group (stent placement alone group) in a 1:1 ratio. Both groups underwent 2 scheduled interventions with an interval of approximately 3 months. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS).</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Results</h3><p>Altogether, 174 participants completed the 2 index endoscopic interventions. No significant differences in the baseline characteristics were noted between the 2 groups. The median OS was significantly higher in the RFA group (14.3 vs 9.2 months; HR, 0.488; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.351 -0.678; <em>P</em>&lt;0.001). The survival benefit was also shown in patients with CCA (13.3 vs 9.2 months; HR, 0.546; 95% CI, 0.386 – 0.771; <em>P</em>&lt;0.001). However, no significant between-group differences were found in jaundice control or stent patency duration. The postprocedural Karnofsky performance scores were significantly higher in the RFA group until 9 months (all <em>P</em>&lt;0.001). Adverse events were comparable between the 2 groups (27.6% vs 19.5%, <em>P</em>=0.211), except for acute cholecystitis, which was more frequently observed in the RFA group (9 vs 0, <em>P</em>=0.003).</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Conclusions</h3><p>Compared with stent placement alone, additional RFA may improve OS and quality of life of patients with inoperable primary EBC who do not undergo systemic treatments.</p>
gastroenterology & hepatology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?