Efficacy and safety of different thermal ablative therapies for desmoid-type fibromatosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Summary

Background: Desmoid-type fibromatosis (DF) is a locally aggressive tumor characterized by peripheral infiltration of neoplastic cells and remote metastasis disability. This systematic review examined the efficacy and safety of thermal ablative therapy for DF tumors. Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase from January 1, 2000, to November 12, 2022. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was used to guide literature selection. The inclusion criteria were the following: (I) the patients were diagnosed with aggressive fibromatosis pathologically, (II) the patients were treated by thermal ablations, and (III) a focus on treatment efficacy and safety. Meanwhile, the exclusion criteria were the following: (I) cohorts of patients with hypertrophic scar, Gardner fibroma, or nodular fasciitis; (II) conference abstracts, reviews, case reports, letters to editors, comments, or editorials; (III) number of patients <5; (IV) in vitro or animal experiments; and (V) non-English language articles. The inverse variance method with a random effects model was used to obtain the pooled data. Subgroup analyses were performed to identify treatment factors. Egger test was conducted to assess the risk of publication bias. Results: After literature selection, 694 DF tumors were identified in 23 studies. In terms of modality, 13 studies used cryoablation, 9 studies used high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), and 1 study used microwave ablation (MWA). The pooled symptom relief rate was 90% [95% confidence interval (CI): 80-97%], with that for HIFU being 100% (95% CI: 85-100%), that for cryoablation being 87% (95% CI: 74-97%), and that MWA being 89% (95% CI). The pooled major complication rate was 3% (95% CI: 1-7%), and that for each modality was as follows: HIFU =2% (95% CI: 0-6%), cryoablation =4% (95% CI: 1-8%), MWA =11%, ultrasound =6% (95% CI: 1-13%), computed tomography (CT) =2% (95% CI: 0-7%), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) =3% (95% CI: 0-14%). The pooled nonperfused volume rate (NPVR) was 76% (95% CI: 71-81%), and that for each modality was as follows: HIFU =77% (95% CI: 71-85%), cryoablation =74% (95% CI: 69-79%), ultrasound =75% (95% CI: 67-83%), CT =76% (95% CI: 67-87%), and MRI =78% (95% CI: 70-87%). The pooled local control rate was 88% (95% CI: 79-94%) and that for each modality was as follows: HIFU =99% (95% CI: 96-100%), cryoablation =80% (95% CI: 68-90%), and MWA =78%. The differences in major complication rate (P=0.77) and NPVR between imaging-guided modalities (P=0.40) were not significant, nor were the differences in symptom relief rate (P=0.32) and major complication rate (P=0.61) between ablative techniques; however, the differences in local control rate (P=0.01) were significant between ablative techniques. Conclusions: Imaging-guided thermal ablative therapies contribute to symptom relief with a duration of more than 6 months and a low major complication rate of DF tumors.