Effects of CT-guided Radiofrequency Versus Microwave Ablation on Pulmonary Function in Individuals with Pulmonary Tumors: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Trial
In brief
Microwave ablation takes 13 minutes less, with similar lung function outcomes
In a randomized trial of 138 people with pulmonary tumors, microwave ablation took about 48 minutes versus 61 minutes for radiofrequency ablation. Lung function at one month, major complications and complete ablation rates were similar between groups. The findings support comparable short-term outcomes, but do not address longer-term lung function or tumor control.
- Journal
- Radiology. Imaging cancer (Q1)
- Published
- 1 November 2026
- Study design
- Randomized controlled trial
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
- Authors
- Gang Wang, Guoliang Xue, Zhigang Wei, Xueqin Gao, Yuliang Li, Jiayuan Sun, et al.
- PMID
- 42992999
- DOI
- 10.1148/rycan.260075
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Radiology, Radiation Oncology, Nuclear Medicine, Medical Physics and Imaging (top studies of the week, 8 November 2026): Randomized comparison of CT-guided lung tumor ablation techniques
Abstract
Purpose To compare short-term changes in pulmonary function after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus microwave ablation (MWA) in participants being treated for pulmonary tumors. Materials and Methods This prospective, multicenter, randomized trial (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry no. ChiCTR2400079813) included participants who underwent CT-guided RFA or MWA between November 2023 and July 2024 at six institutions. Pulmonary function tests, including vital capacity, forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), percentage of predicted FEV1, maximum midexpiratory flow, and single-breath diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide, were performed at baseline and 1 month after ablation. Secondary outcomes included procedure time, complications, and ablation completion rate. Intergroup comparisons and intragroup changes were analyzed. Results Overall, 138 participants with pulmonary tumors (mean age ± SD, 61.9 years ± 9.4; 72 female) were randomly assigned to undergo CT-guided RFA (n = 46) or MWA (n = 92). There was no evidence of a difference between the RFA and MWA groups for any pulmonary function parameter at baseline and at 1 month after ablation (eg, mean FEV1 for RFA vs MWA, 2.27 L ± 0.70 vs 2.26 L ± 0.64 at baseline [P = .92]; 2.24 L ± 0.60 vs 2.20 L ± 0.60 at 1 month [P = .77]), nor was there evidence of a difference in pulmonary function parameters within each group (eg, mean FEV1 with RFA, P = .32; mean FEV1 with MWA, P = .10). The mean procedure time was significantly shorter for MWA than for RFA (48.1 vs 61.4 minutes, respectively; P = .004). The rates of major complications were similar between the two groups (eg, pneumothorax requiring chest tube drainage [20% for MWA vs 26% for RFA; P = .38]). Complete ablation rates were high for both techniques (98% [90 of 92] for MWA vs 93% [43 of 46] for RFA; P = .33). Conclusion RFA and MWA demonstrated similar short-term influences on pulmonary function in participants with pulmonary tumors; however, MWA was associated with a shorter procedure time, with outcomes similar to those seen with RFA. Keywords: Interventional-Oncology, Pulmonary Tumor, Radiofrequency Ablation, Microwave Ablation, Pulmonary Function Supplemental material is available for this article. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry no. ChiCTR2400079813 © The Author(s) 2026. Published by the Radiological Society of North America under a CC BY 4.0 license.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.