Radiofrequency versus Ethanol Ablation for Treating Predominantly Cystic Thyroid Nodules: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
10.3348/kjr.2015.16.6.1332
- Author:
Jung Hwan BAEK
1
;
Eun Ju HA
;
Young Jun CHOI
;
Jin Yong SUNG
;
Jae Kyun KIM
;
Young Kee SHONG
Author Information
1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05505, Korea. radbaek@naver.com
- Publication Type:Clinical Trial ; Comparative Study ; Original Article ; Randomized Controlled Trial
- Keywords:
Ultrasound;
Radiofrequency;
Ethanol;
Predominantly cystic thyroid nodule;
Thyroid
- MeSH:
Adult;
Aged;
Catheter Ablation;
Ethanol/*therapeutic use;
Female;
Humans;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Single-Blind Method;
Thyroid Nodule/*drug therapy/*surgery/ultrasonography;
Treatment Outcome;
Tumor Burden
- From:Korean Journal of Radiology
2015;16(6):1332-1340
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
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.
