Authors' recommendations: Summary The available evidence on the safety and clinical effectiveness of RFA for primary and secondary lung cancer consists of numerous uncontrolled case series and case reports. Heterogeneity limits the extent to which the data can be synthesised. A recent systematic review of case series that informed NICE IP guidance on percutaneous RFA concluded that while it was a promising treatment for carefully selected patients, evidence from studies comparing RFA with alternative local treatments was needed. NICE stipulated that patient selection should be carried out by a MDT, and encouraged further research clearly describing case mix and lesion size, and reporting long-term survival. No evidence was identified on the cost effectiveness of RFA for the treatment of primary or secondary lung cancer in the United Kingdom. A cost-utility analysis in the USA concluded that, if SBRT were not available, RFA could be a more cost-effective treatment than 3D-CRT for small (2 cm), but not larger, tumours in patients with medically-inoperable peripheral stage I NSCLC (primary lung cancer).

Project Status: Completed

Year Published: 2012

URL for published report: http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/our_work/technologies_and_medicines/shtg_scoping_reports/technologies_scoping_report_10.aspx

English language abstract: An English language summary is available

Publication Type: Not Assigned

Country: Scotland, United Kingdom

Organisation Name: Scottish Health Technologies Group

Contact Address: Scottish Health Technologies Group, Delta House, 50 West Nile Street, Glasgow, G1 2NP Tel: 0141 225 6998

Contact Name: his.shtg@nhs.scot

Contact Email: his.shtg@nhs.scot

Copyright: Healthcare Improvement Scotland