This article provides an overview of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) for treatment of primary liver tumors and hepatic metastasis. Only studies reporting RFA and MWA safety and efficacy on liver were retained. We found 40 clinical studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. RFA has become an established treatment modality because of its efficacy, reproducibility, low complication rates, and availability. MWA has several advantages over RFA, which may make it more attractive to treat hepatic tumors. According to the literature, the overall survival, local recurrence, complication rates, disease‐free survival, and mortality in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with RFA vary between 53.2 ± 3.0 months and 66 months, between 59.8% and 63.1%, between 2% and 10.5%, between 22.0 ± 2.6 months and 39 months, and between 0% and 1.2%, respectively. According to the literature, overall survival, local recurrence, complication rates, disease‐free survival, and mortality in patients with HCC treated with MWA (compared with RFA) vary between 22 months for focal lesion >3 cm (vs. 21 months) and 50 months for focal lesion ≤3 cm (vs. 27 months), between 5% (vs. 46.6%) and 17.8% (vs. 18.2%), between 2.2% (vs. 0%) and 61.5% (vs. 45.4%), between 14 months (vs. 10.5 months) and 22 months (vs. no data reported), and between 0% (vs. 0%) and 15% (vs. 36%), respectively. According to the literature, the overall survival, local recurrence, complication rates, and mortality in liver metastases patients treated with RFA (vs. MWA) are not statistically different for both the survival times from primary tumor diagnosis and survival times from ablation, between 10% (vs. 6%) and 35.7% (vs. 39.6), between 1.1% (vs. 3.1%) and 24% (vs. 27%), and between 0% (vs. 0%) and 2% (vs. 0.3%). MWA should be considered the technique of choice in selected patients, when the tumor is ≥3 cm in diameter or is close to large vessels, independent of its size. Implications for Practice Although technical features of the radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) are similar, the differences arise from the physical phenomenon used to generate heat. RFA has become an established treatment modality because of its efficacy, reproducibility, low complication rates, and availability. MWA has several advantages over RFA, which may make it more attractive than RFA to treat hepatic tumors. The benefits of MWA are an improved convection profile, higher constant intratumoral temperatures, faster ablation times, and the ability to use multiple probes to treat multiple lesions simultaneously. MWA should be considered the technique of choice when the tumor is ≥3 cm in diameter or is close to large vessels, independent of its size.

Pegylated ADI is a promising drug that capitalizes on a significant enzymatic deficiency in HCC. It is safe, well tolerated, and may benefit patients with unresectable HCC.

Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926 . Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include...

Electrochemotherapy is feasible and safe treatment modality in patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Dynamic and diffusion MR imaging in comparison to MR morphological sequence alone and to UC and CT imaging is more suitable to assess ECT treatment response. CEUS is not indicated in follow up after ECT.