Radiofrequency Ablation for Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma versus Surgery and Other Thermal Ablation Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outcomes.

Authors

Eun Ju Ha, Min Kyoung Lee, Jeong Hoon Lee, Ji Ye Lee, Ji-Hoon Kim

Published in

Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea). Oct 06, 2026. Epub Oct 06, 2026.

Abstract

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been proposed for selected patients with low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC). This study compared the effectiveness, safety, and procedural characteristics of RFA with those of surgery and other thermal ablation techniques.
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and KoreaMed were searched for studies published between January 2000 and March 2025. Two reviewers independently extracted data in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and assessed study quality using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies, version 2. Pooled analyses were performed using random-effects models. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) were calculated for continuous outcomes.
Fifteen studies including 3,612 patients with PTC were analyzed. Compared with surgery, RFA was associated with a similar disease progression rate (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.51; P=0.683) and a lower complication rate (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.63; P=0.003). RFA was also associated with less intraoperative blood loss (MD, -21.87 mL), shorter procedure time (MD, -68.14 minutes), and shorter hospital stay (MD, -5.75 days; all P<0.001). Compared with other thermal ablation techniques, RFA showed similar disease progression rates (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.16 to 7.14), complication rates (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.17 to 4.49), volume reduction rates (MD, 0.02%), and complete disappearance rates (MD, 0.96%), with no statistically significant differences across outcomes.
RFA may be considered as an alternative to surgery for selected patients with low-risk PTC. Randomized trials with longer follow-up are needed to confirm its oncologic durability and safety.

PMID:
42834747
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 06 Oct 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.