ObjectiveTo explore the effectiveness and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for bone tumors, so as to provide a reference for clinical decision. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI and VIP databases were systematically searched for clinical effectiveness and safety studies of HIFU for bone tumors up to August 2014. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were applied independently by two reviewers, and then RevMan 5.1 software was used for conducting meta-analysis. If the data cannot be synthesized, the research outcome was described with a qualitative analysis. ResultsA total of 10 case series including 257 patients (157 males, 100 females) were included. The current evidence indicated that overall survival rates for all primary bone malignancy at 1-, 2-, 3- and 5-year were 89.8%, 72.3%, 60.5% and 50.5%, respectively. For the patients with clinical stage Ⅱb, the rates were 93.3%, 82.4%, 75% and 63.7%, respectively. For those with clinical stage Ⅲ, the rates were 79.2%, 42.2%, 21.1% and 15.8%, respectively. The local recurrence rate of HIFU for bone tumors was 7% to 9%, and recurrences at 1-, 2-, 3- and 5-year were 0%, 6.2%, 11.8% and 11.8%, respectively. The amputation rate was 2% to 7%. The adverse reaction rate was 27.2% (70/257), and among them the main was mild skin burn (21/257, 8.2%), followed by I degree burns (16/257, 6.2%), nerve damage (10/257, 3.9%) and fracture (6/257, 2.3%). ConclusionHIFU provide an alternative choice for patients with bone malignancy, with a certain effectiveness and safety. However, high-quality, large-scale randomized controlled trials or cohort studies which may focus on vary kinds of tumors, clinical stage and site of lesions are urgently needed, so that clinicians can use sufficient evidence for their clinical decision-making.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological quality and impacts on outcomes for systematic reviews (SRs) of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus hepatic resection (HR) for early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MethodsWe comprehensively searched six databases and five official websites for health technology assessment (HTA), to collect HTAs, SRs, or meta-analyses from inception to Nov. 11th, 2012. The Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) was applied for quality assessment of included studies, the tools recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration was applied for quality assessment for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the modified MINORS score was applied to assess non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs). The odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were integrated using Stata 10.0 software. ResultsOne HTA, 3 SRs and 15 meta-analyses were included in total. The mean OQAQ score was 3.3 with 95%CI 2.6 to 4.1. Only five (26.3%) SRs were assessed as good quality. Seven studies misused statistical models, and 3 of them changed outcome direction after modification. Five studies (5/19) included retrospective controlled studies as RCTs. A total of 39 primary studies referenced by SRs were included, of which, 3 RCTs were levelled grade B, 35 NRCTs were of moderate quality, with an estimated mean MINORS score of 15.0 (totally, scored 18) with 95%CI 14.6 to 15.4, and only 13 studies (37.1%) scored more than 16. Seventeen primary studies (43.6%) did not meet inclusion criteria of the SRs, of which, 9 (23.1%) studies were mixed with other effective interventions in both groups (TACE, PEI, etc.). Four studies included patients with non-primary HCC. ConclusionCurrently, the overall quality of HTAs, SRs and meta-analyses about comparing the effects between RFA and HR for early HCC is fairly poor (high heterogeneity exists, and the evidence level is low. Physicians should apply the evidence with caution in clinical practice.