ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to retrospectively compare microwave (MWA) and radiofrequency (RFA) ablation in the percutaneous treatment of primary and secondary lung tumors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 115 patients with a total of 160 lung tumors (primary, n=41; secondary, n=119) were retrospectively included. There were 56 men and 59 women with a mean age of 67.8±12.7 (SD) years (range: 42-89 years) who underwent either MWA (61 patients; 79 tumors) or RFA (54 patients; 81 tumors). The primary study endpoints were local recurrence during follow-up and the incidence of complications during and following thermal ablation. The MWA and RFA groups were compared in terms of treatment efficacy and complication rates. RESULTS: Demographics were similar in the two groups. Mean tumor diameter was smaller in RFA group (13.1±5.1 [SD] mm; range: 4-27mm) than in MWA group (17.1±8.3 [SD] mm; range: 5-36mm) (P<0.001). Ablation volumes at one month were 24.1±21.7 (SD) cm3 (range: 2-97.8 cm3) in RFA group and 30.2±35.9 (SD) cm3 (range: 1.9-243.8 cm3) in MWA group (P=0.195). During a mean overall follow-up duration of 488±407 (SD) days (range: 30-1508 days), 9/160 tumors (5.6%) developed local recurrence: six (6/79; 7.6%) in the RFA group and three (3/81; 3.7%) in the MWA group (P=0.32). Pneumothoraces were more frequent in the RFA group (32/79; 40.5%) than in the MWA group (20/81; 24.7%) (P=0.049). The mean length of hospital stay was 4.5±3.7 (SD) days (range: 1-25 days) in the RFA group and 4.7±4.6 (SD) days (range: 2-25 days) in the MWA group (P=0.76). CONCLUSIONS: MWA favorably compares with RFA and can be considered as an effective and safe thermal ablation technique for lung tumors, especially in situations where RFA has limited efficacy.
