Percutaneous tumor ablation techniques for palliative cancer pain: a narrative review

Introduction

Cancer pain remains a significant challenge in patient management, often severely impacting quality of life despite advances in systemic therapies (1).

For a substantial proportion of cancer patients, conventional analgesic approaches, including opioids, prove insufficient, necessitating exploration of alternative pain management strategies (2). Interventional pain management techniques, particularly percutaneous tumor ablation, offer promising avenues for palliative care in such refractory cases by directly addressing the tumor as a pain generator (1,3). Approximately 10% to 20% of cancer patients experience inadequate pain control despite adherence to the World Health Organization’s three-step analgesic ladder, highlighting the critical need for advanced interventional approaches (2,4). This growing demand for effective pain therapies, particularly for those unresponsive to conventional methods, has led to increased interest in interventional radiological approaches, including tumor ablation (5). These techniques, which were once a cornerstone in managing intractable cancer pain, are experiencing a resurgence as clinicians seek alternatives to opioid-centric pain management strategies (6). The undertreatment of cancer pain is a prevalent issue, often stemming from concerns regarding opioid side effects, potential for misuse, and regulatory hurdles (7). Consequently, percutaneous tumor ablation techniques are increasingly recognized for their potential to provide durable pain relief and improve functional status in patients with advanced cancer (8).

Cancer-related pain is one of the most frequent and distressing symptoms encountered in oncology practice. Despite advances in systemic therapy, radiotherapy, and targeted pharmacologic approaches, up to 40% of patients with advanced cancer experience inadequate pain relief or intolerable medication side effects. Interventional pain medicine therefore plays an increasingly central role in multimodal oncologic care, offering procedures that address pain at its source while minimizing systemic exposure (7,9).

Percutaneous tumor ablation is a rapidly evolving area within interventional oncology that has direct relevance to pain specialists. By inducing targeted cytotoxicity within neoplastic tissue, ablation can reduce tumor burden, relieve mass effect on neural or musculoskeletal structures, and attenuate inflammatory mediators contributing to nociceptive and neuropathic pain. For many patients who are not surgical candidates or who have exhausted radiation or systemic options, these minimally invasive procedures provide both local tumor control and meaningful analgesia (1,3,6,10-12). The multifaceted nature of cancer pain, encompassing physical, psychosocial, and spiritual dimensions, necessitates a comprehensive and individualized treatment plan that integrates pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and procedural interventions (13). Pain is the most common symptom in cancer patients, affecting approximately 90% and significantly impairing quality of life, functional status, and mental well-being (7,14).

Historically, ablation techniques were developed for hepatic and renal tumors, but their use has expanded to bone metastases, lung, adrenal, and soft-tissue lesions. The emergence of advanced imaging guidance—computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and high-resolution ultrasound—has enabled precise probe placement and temperature monitoring, reducing complications and improving reproducibility. Parallel advances in device design and energy delivery have diversified available modalities: radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation (MWA), cryoablation, laser ablation, and non-thermal techniques such as irreversible electroporation (IRE) (15,16). These modalities selectively destroy tumor tissue, thereby interrupting nociceptive pathways and reducing tumor-induced mass effect or inflammatory mediator release (17).

For the interventional pain physician, familiarity with these technologies is essential. Understanding their mechanisms, safety profiles, and clinical outcomes allows appropriate selection and collaboration with interventional radiologists and oncologists. The purpose of this narrative review is therefore to provide a concise yet comprehensive overview of contemporary ablation techniques for palliative pain control, highlight evidence from recent literature, and discuss procedural considerations relevant to pain practice (18-20). This review will synthesize current knowledge regarding the analgesic efficacy, safety, and technical aspects of percutaneous ablation modalities, offering practical insights for their integration into comprehensive cancer pain management algorithms. Specifically, this includes an examination of RFA, cryoablation, and MWA, given their established roles in alleviating pain from various tumor types, particularly bone metastases (21). Furthermore, the discussion will encompass key patient selection criteria, pre-procedural assessment protocols, and potential complications associated with these interventional approaches to ensure safe and effective patient care (18). We present this article in accordance with the Narrative Review reporting checklist (available at https://apm.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/apm-2025-aw-121/rc).

Methods

Search strategy and selection criteria

A narrative literature review was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases to identify studies published between January 2000 and March 2025 concerning percutaneous tumor ablation and cancer-related pain. Search terms included combinations of cancer pain, tumor ablation, radiofrequency, microwave, cryoablation, laser, irreversible electroporation, high-intensity focused ultrasound, and palliation (Table 1). Reference lists of retrieved articles were screened manually to identify additional relevant publications (15).

Priority was given to review article, prospective studies and retrospective series reporting pain outcomes, opioid consumption, quality-of-life measures, or functional improvement following ablation. Technical reports or small case series were included when addressing novel approaches or rare tumor locations. Only English-language human, ex vivo models or biophysical models studies were considered (Table 1). Finally, a total of 36 studies were included, of which 7 helped to describe RFA, 8 MWA, 9 cryoablation, 3 laser ablation, 6 IRE, and 5 the clinical relevance for interventional pain practice. Due to the narrative nature of this review, a formal meta-analysis was not conducted; instead, findings are presented thematically to provide a comprehensive overview of the current landscape of percutaneous tumor ablation for cancer pain.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data were extracted regarding study design, patient population, tumor type and location, ablation modality, imaging guidance, anesthesia technique, primary pain outcomes [Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)/Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) change, opioid reduction], and complications. Because of heterogeneity across studies, formal meta-analysis was not attempted; instead, qualitative synthesis was undertaken to describe trends in analgesic efficacy and safety. Emphasis was placed on clinical implications for interventional pain specialists rather than oncologic survival endpoints (Table 2).

Ethical considerations

As a literature-based review, this work did not require institutional ethics approval or patient consent. The review followed the SANRA (Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles) quality criteria to ensure transparency and methodological rigor.

Results

RFA

Mechanism of action

RFA delivers alternating current high-frequency alternating current (200–1,200 kHz) through an electrode, producing ionic agitation and frictional heat (30) that leads to coagulative necrosis of tumor tissue at temperatures of 60–100 ℃ (43). The ablation zone can be modulated by tip size, exposure length, and impedance-based feedback systems (48).

Analgesic rationale

Pain reduction after RFA is primarily due to destruction of periosteal and intratumoral nociceptors, relief of pressure on neural elements, and decreased release of inflammatory mediators (35).

Clinical evidence

Multiple prospective series have shown significant improvements in pain and function in patients with bone metastases (36). Callstrom et al. (52) reported ≥2-point VAS reduction in 92% of patients within 24 hours after RFA of osseous metastases. Recent meta-analyses confirm durable pain relief lasting 3–6 months, with concurrent reductions in opioid use and improved mobility (36). RFA combined with cementoplasty offers additional biomechanical stabilization for lytic vertebral lesions (31).

Limitations and risks

The heat-sink effect may reduce efficacy in highly vascular tissues (36). Potential complications include thermal injury to adjacent nerves or skin burns; real-time temperature monitoring and careful probe orientation minimize these risks (31).

MWA

Mechanism of action

MWA produces dielectric heating through oscillation of water molecules, using probes with frequencies of 900–2,450 MHz, generating temperatures up to 150 ℃ (30,37). Compared with RFA, it achieves faster, larger, and more homogeneous ablation zones (30) and is less affected by local perfusion (32) (Table 3).

Analgesic rationale

By achieving uniform cytoreduction, MWA reduces mechanical and chemical stimulation of peri-tumoral nerves (24) and decreases cytokine release (51).

Clinical evidence

Recent studies have reported comparable or superior pain relief to RFA. A 2024 systematic review of MWA for bone and soft-tissue metastases documented mean VAS reduction from 7.2 to 2.1 within four weeks and sustained benefit beyond 6 months. Combination with cement augmentation enhances spinal stability and immediate analgesia (25).

Advantages and technical considerations

MWA allows simultaneous use of multiple probes, making it efficient for large or multifocal lesions (30,33). Lower susceptibility to heat-sink effects permits treatment near moderate-flow vessels (33). However, temperature-related neuropathy remains a risk if neural margins are <5 mm (37,49).

Cryoablation

Mechanism of action

Cryoprobes circulate high-pressure argon or nitrogen whose function is to freeze tumor tissue (–40 ℃) followed by passive thawing (23). Extracellular ice crystal formation and microvascular thrombosis lead to cell death (44).

Advantages for pain practice

Unlike thermal methods, the ice-ball margin is directly visible on CT or MRI, allowing precise control near sensitive structures (29,34,44). Because freezing induces temporary nerve conduction block, intra-procedural discomfort is often less pronounced than with heating techniques (26). It is not contraindicated in patients with pacemakers (38) (Table 3).

Clinical evidence

Cryoablation has shown excellent safety in palliative bone and soft-tissue metastases. Kurup et al. (18) reported significant pain reduction in 84 % of patients at one week post-procedure, maintained for three months. A 2025 multicenter analysis comparing RFA vs. cryoablation for spinal metastases found equivalent pain relief but lower procedure-related pain with cryoablation (22) (Table 3).

Limitations and risks

Cryoshock, though rare, can occur in extensive liver treatments (44). Nerve injury may result from inadvertent freeze propagation; thermocouples and CO₂ insulation are recommended to protect adjacent neural structures (39).

Laser ablation

Mechanism of action

Laser ablation typically uses neodymium:yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) or diode energy (27), which is delivered through a micrometric optical fiber (700–1,200 nm) (45). It produces localized heating through photon absorption, resulting in cellular carbonization and coagulative necrosis (27).

Clinical evidence

Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) has been used for hepatic, cerebral, and spinal lesions (27). In the context of pain, LITT may offer precise focal control in small-volume tumors adjacent to neural tissue, with MRI guidance ensuring safety. Early reports suggest meaningful pain reduction and preservation of neurological function in spinal metastases unamenable to RF (50).

Advantages and limitations

Laser probes are thin and flexible, suitable for percutaneous or endoscopic routes. However, the limited ablation volume (1–2 centimeters) requires multiple insertions for large tumors, and the equipment is less widely available than RFA or MWA systems (27,38) (Table 3).

IRE

Mechanism of action

IRE applies short high-voltage electrical pulses (1–3 kV/cm) (40). The voltage is adjusted to achieve a current of 20 to 40 amps, administering 90 pulses between each pair of electrodes (41), creating permanent nanopores in cell membranes and inducing apoptosis without thermal damage. Collagenous matrices, vessels, and nerves are largely spared (42).

Analgesic potential

Because of its non-thermal nature, IRE is particularly promising for lesions encasing or abutting major nerves where heat injury is unacceptable. It disrupts tumor cell membranes and may reduce local inflammatory cascades contributing to neuropathic pain (15).

Clinical evidence

Although evidence remains limited, recent clinical studies demonstrate encouraging results for ablation techniques in metastatic disease. Percutaneous IRE of lymph node metastases has been shown to be safe and technically effective with low rates of complications in patients with lesions adjacent to critical structures. Longer term follow up demonstrates durable local control in selected cases (28).

Limitations

IRE requires general anesthesia with neuromuscular blockade to prevent muscle contraction. High equipment cost and limited long-term oncologic data have restricted its adoption, but its safety near neural structures is highly relevant to pain practice (28,42).

Clinical relevance for interventional pain practice

Tumor ablation should be viewed as part of a continuum of interventional pain strategies that also include neurolytic blocks, vertebral augmentation, and neuromodulation. Appropriate patient selection is critical. Candidates typically present with localized, imaging-correlating pain refractory to systemic therapy or radiation and with an expected survival >3 months (3,5).

Practical considerations

• Imaging guidance: among the advantages of using CT during percutaneous ablation are the clear visualization of air-containing tissues, precise three-dimensional imaging, and accurate delineation of applicators or subelectrodes. MRI, in turn, allows for thermometry, as well as soft-tissue visualization without osseous or gaseous artifacts. In addition, blood vessels can be visualized without the use of contrast agents, and image acquisition can be performed in any plane or orientation. Finally, ultrasound is useful for superficial lesions, and its advantages include ease of operation, low cost, absence of ionizing X-ray radiation, and real-time guidance (38,46) (Table 4).

  Table 4

  Imaging modalities used for guidance in tumor ablation

  
  

  Imaging modality	Key advantages	Limitations/considerations	Typical applications in pain practice
  CT	Excellent spatial resolution and visualization of deep structures; widely available	Radiation exposure; limited soft-tissue contrast	Bone and deep soft-tissue metastases, vertebral and pelvic lesions
  MRI	Superior soft-tissue contrast; enables real-time thermometry; multiplanar assessment	Higher cost; limited access; magnetic-field restrictions	Spinal and paraspinal lesions, intracranial and hepatic metastases near neural structures
  US	Real-time guidance; inexpensive; no radiation	Limited penetration through bone or air; operator dependent	Superficial soft-tissue or hepatic lesions; adjunct to CT for probe placement
  PET/CT	Combines metabolic and anatomic information; useful for follow-up	Limited role for real-time guidance	Post-ablation metabolic response assessment

  CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PET, positron emission tomography; US, ultrasound.
• Anesthesia: percutaneous ablation is usually well tolerated and can be performed using multiple anesthetic strategies, selected according to the ablation modality, tumor location, procedure duration, and patient comorbidities. Among these, conscious sedation is the most commonly used approach, followed by local anesthesia with subcutaneous infiltration. The latter is typically used as an adjunct in all procedures; however, in cryoablation it may be employed as the sole anesthetic approach due to its association with lower intraoperative pain. In contrast, MWA and RFA generally require deeper levels of sedation, including general anesthesia (38).
• Post-procedure care: ablation procedures aim to achieve pain control within 24 to 72 hours, with a progressive reduction in analgesic therapy (47).
• Combination therapies: ablation plus cementoplasty or external-beam radiation can provide synergistic mechanical and biologic control. This reduces the risk of pathological fracture and complements local control by acting on residual tumor cells and alleviating pain (3).
• Follow-up: for follow-up, clinical evaluation with VAS/NRS scores is recommended and repeat imaging at one and three months is standard (38).

Discussion

Percutaneous ablation techniques use heat or cold to attenuate the chemical or mechanical stimulation of neuronal endings that initiate the sensation of pain (38,53), thereby improving not only patient functionality but also quality of life (54,55). However, when analyzing each of its modalities, slight differences in pain-related outcomes are observed, likely due to their physical properties, mechanisms of action, and the imaging guidance selected.

The systematic review by Yao et al. (56) supported what was described in the previous section, noting that MWA alone or in combination with surgery effectively relieves pain caused by metastases of primary tumors in the spinal column, whereas RFA achieves this effect only when combined with other modalities. This study was the first to systematically and quantitatively compare both ablation techniques in patients with spinal metastases, making it a relevant contribution to the literature despite the absence of randomized studies and the inclusion of retrospective studies with small samples. In turn, Bertolotti et al. (57), in a narrative review of the literature, stated that radiofrequency, cryoablation, and MWA yield similar results in patients with cancerous cells or metastases in the kidney, and that the imaging modality selected by the operator is what determines the difference. Despite the influence of the authors’ interpretative approach, this review offered a broad overview of the subject and allowed for the development of a critical perspective and an appropriate synthesis of the literature.

Similarly, Shanmugasundaram et al. (58), in a systematic review and meta-analysis (evaluating methodological quality) conducted in a population with similar pain characteristics, reported a significant and sustained reduction in pain following the use of RFA, cryoablation, laser ablation, and MWA, with no significant differences among techniques but a trend favoring MWA. This finding encouraged the selection of the technique based on tumor location, cost-effectiveness, institutional availability, and operator preference, taking into account the learning curve associated with relatively new methods such as MWA. At the same time, it is important to note that some authors reject the presence of positive effects following the use of percutaneous ablation techniques. For example, Flak et al. (59) reported that IRE does not improve quality of life or pain perception in patients with pancreatic cancer and even documented deterioration in several aspects six months after its application. This finding should not discourage new trials, as larger, randomized, and controlled studies could help clarify the subjective experience of patients. Nevertheless, the authors suggest considering the technique only when the objective is exclusively curative (tumor reduction).

Despite these considerations, most studies advocate for the efficacy of percutaneous ablation techniques in relieving pain, thereby improving quality of life and, in some cases, extending life expectancy. However, results may vary according to the selected ablation procedure, operator expertise, and the clinical condition of the affected individual. For this reason, it is essential that operators possess sufficient technical and theoretical knowledge to select the appropriate type of ablation and imaging guidance for each case, especially in countries where healthcare resources are limited. Finally, it is important to note that this study is not exempt from limitations, as it is not a systematic review and no meta-analysis was conducted, making it possible to incur selection or publication bias. Additionally, diverse sources of information were included, with substantial differences in their objectives and methodologies. Even so, this narrative review is valuable, as it will serve as a starting point for future work.

Conclusions

Cancer-related pain remains a significant source of suffering for patients with advanced malignancy and is often inadequately controlled with systemic therapies or radiotherapy alone. Percutaneous image-guided tumor ablation has emerged as a valuable adjunct within palliative care, offering targeted, minimally invasive pain relief with the potential for rapid and durable benefit.

Current evidence supports the use of both thermal and non-thermal ablation modalities for meaningful reductions in pain intensity, opioid requirements, and pain-related functional impairment. RFA and MWA are well established for painful bone and soft-tissue metastases, while cryoablation provides advantages near neural or critical structures. Emerging techniques, including laser ablation, IRE, and bipolar RFA—often combined with vertebral augmentation—expand treatment options for complex or anatomically challenging lesions.

Despite promising results, the literature remains heterogeneous, highlighting the need for standardized pain outcome measures, clearer patient selection criteria, and comparative studies evaluating optimal technique selection and timing. Multidisciplinary collaboration and earlier integration of ablative interventions into palliative care pathways may enhance symptom control and improve quality of life. As evidence continues to evolve, tumor ablation is likely to assume an increasingly important role in comprehensive, patient-centered cancer pain management.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Latin American Pain Society (LAPS) for its non-profit support of pain education and research throughout our region, ultimately aimed at improving patient care.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the Guest Editor (Alaa Abd-Elsayed) for the series “Pain Management Options for Incurable Cancer” published in Annals of Palliative Medicine. The article has undergone external peer review.

Reporting Checklist: The authors have completed the Narrative Review reporting checklist. Available at https://apm.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/apm-2025-aw-121/rc

Peer Review File: Available at https://apm.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/apm-2025-aw-121/prf

Funding: None.

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://apm.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/apm-2025-aw-121/coif). The series “Pain Management Options for Incurable Cancer” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. R.D.T. is a proctor for Medtronic - neuromodulation (SCS and ITP). The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Sharma A, N, Thakur N, Thakur A, et al. Role of Interventional Techniques in the Management of Cancer Pain. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Care 2023;8:391-9.
2. Hochberg U, Ingelmo P, Solé E, et al. Early Interventional Treatments for Patients with Cancer Pain: A Narrative Review. J Pain Res 2023;16:1663-71. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Corriero A, Giglio M, Soloperto R, et al. The Missing Link: Integrating Interventional Pain Management in the Era of Multimodal Oncology. Pain Ther 2025;14:1223-46. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Wong K, Stack AA, Are M. Neurolytic Celiac Plexus Blockade in Patients with Upper Intraabdominal Malignancies: An Evidence-Based Narrative Review. Graduate Medical Education Research Journal 2020;2(2).
5. Rauch M, Hattingen E. Interventional pain treatment in radiology: An overview of practical approaches. Clin Imaging 2025;125:110530. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Raslan AM, Ben-Haim S, Falowski SM, et al. Neurosurgery 2021;88:437-42. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Habib MH, Schlögl M, Raza S, et al. Interventional pain management in cancer patients-a scoping review. Ann Palliat Med 2023;12:1198-214. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Kurita GP, Sjøgren P, Klepstad P, et al. Interventional Techniques to Management of Cancer-Related Pain: Clinical and Critical Aspects. Cancers (Basel) 2019;11:443. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Aman MM, Mahmoud A, Deer T, et al. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Best Practices and Guidelines for the Interventional Management of Cancer-Associated Pain. J Pain Res 2021;14:2139-64. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Gazis AN, Beuing O, Franke J, et al. Bipolar radiofrequency ablation of spinal tumors: predictability, safety and outcome. Spine J 2014;14:604-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Tomasian A, Jennings JW. Hot and Cold Spine Tumor Ablations. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2019;29:529-38. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Papalexis N, Parmeggiani A, Peta G, et al. Minimally Invasive Interventional Procedures for Metastatic Bone Disease: A Comprehensive Review. Curr Oncol 2022;29:4155-77. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. Cipta AM, Pietras CJ, Weiss TE, et al. Cancer-related pain management in clinical oncology. J Community Support Oncol 2015;13:347-55. [Crossref] [PubMed]
14. Gress KL, Charipova K, Kaye AD, et al. An Overview of Current Recommendations and Options for the Management of Cancer Pain: A Comprehensive Review. Oncol Ther 2020;8:251-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
15. Campbell WA 4th, Makary MS. Advances in Image-Guided Ablation Therapies for Solid Tumors. Cancers (Basel) 2024;16:2560. [Crossref] [PubMed]
16. Ahmed M, Brace CL, Lee FT Jr, et al. Principles of and advances in percutaneous ablation. Radiology 2011;258:351-69. [Crossref] [PubMed]
17. Paul A, Borkar A. Fluoroscopy-Guided Splanchnic Nerve Block for Cancer-Associated Pain. Cureus 2022;14:e30944. [Crossref] [PubMed]
18. Kurup AN, Callstrom MR. Ablation of musculoskeletal metastatic lesions including cementoplasty. In Clinical Interventional Oncology. Rochester: Elsevier; 2013.
19. Tan H, Stedelin B, Bakr SM, et al. Neurosurgical Ablation for Pain: A Technology Review. World Neurosurg 2023;170:114-22. [Crossref] [PubMed]
20. Abd-Elsayed A, Kennedy K. The art of radiofrequency ablation. Ann Palliat Med 2024;13:471-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
21. Garnon J. Mastering Musculoskeletal Interventions: CVIR’s Newest Special Issue. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2023;46:1437-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
22. Pennington Z, Morris JM, Elsamadicy A, et al. Ablative Techniques for the Management of Osseous Spine Metastases: A Narrative Review. J Clin Med 2025;14:6358. [Crossref] [PubMed]
23. Bodard S, Geevarghese R, Razakamanantsoa L, et al. Percutaneous cryoablation in soft tissue tumor management: an educational review. Insights Imaging 2024;15:278. [Crossref] [PubMed]
24. Wang L, Lu M, Zhuang M, et al. Microwave ablation with hydrodissection used for the treatment of vascular malformations: effectiveness and safety study. Front Oncol 2024;14:1146972. [Crossref] [PubMed]
25. Wang Z, Zuo T, Lin W, et al. Safety and clinical efficacy of microwave ablation combined with percutaneous vertebroplasty in the treatment of multisegmental spinal metastases. J Cancer Res Ther 2024;20:712-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
26. Meng Z. Chinese expert consensus on composite ablation system for the treatment of primary liver cancer (2023 edition). Hepatoma Res 2024;10:17.
27. Fan Y, Liu S, Gao E, et al. The LMIT: Light-mediated minimally-invasive theranostics in oncology. Theranostics 2024;14:341-62. [Crossref] [PubMed]
28. Narayanan G, Mahendra AM, Gentile NT, et al. Safety and Effectiveness of Irreversible Electroporation in Lymph Node Metastases. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2024;47:1066-73. [Crossref] [PubMed]
29. D’Souza DL, Ragulojan R, Guo C, et al. Thermal Ablation in the Liver: Heat versus Cold-What Is the Role of Cryoablation?. Semin Intervent Radiol 2024;40:491-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
30. Quang TT, Yang J, Mikhail AS, et al. Locoregional Thermal and Chemical Tumor Ablation: Review of Clinical Applications and Potential Opportunities for Use in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. JCO Glob Oncol 2023;9:e2300155. [Crossref] [PubMed]
31. Colonna S, Bianconi A, Cofano F, et al. Radiofrequency Ablation in Vertebral Body Metastasis with and without Percutaneous Cement Augmentation: A Systematic Review Addressing the Need for SPINE Stability Evaluation. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023;13:1164. [Crossref] [PubMed]
32. Frackowiak B, Van den Bosch V, Tokoutsi Z, et al. First validation of a model-based hepatic percutaneous microwave ablation planning on a clinical dataset. Sci Rep 2023;13:16862. [Crossref] [PubMed]
33. De Vita E, Lo Presti D, Massaroni C, et al. A review on radiofrequency, laser, and microwave ablations and their thermal monitoring through fiber Bragg gratings. iScience 2023;26:108260. [Crossref] [PubMed]
34. Robinson TP, Pebror T, Krosin ME, et al. Ablative Therapy in Non-HCC Liver Malignancy. Cancers (Basel) 2023;15:1200. [Crossref] [PubMed]
35. Giammalva GR, Costanzo R, Paolini F, et al. Management of Spinal Bone Metastases With Radiofrequency Ablation, Vertebral Reinforcement and Transpedicular Fixation: A Retrospective Single-Center Case Series. Front Oncol 2022;11:818760. [Crossref] [PubMed]
36. Ryan A, Byrne C, Pusceddu C, et al. CIRSE Standards of Practice on Thermal Ablation of Bone Tumours. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2022;45:591-605. [Crossref] [PubMed]
37. Neizert CA, Do HNC, Zibell M, et al. Three-dimensional assessment of vascular cooling effects on hepatic microwave ablation in a standardized ex vivo model. Sci Rep 2022;12:17061. [Crossref] [PubMed]
38. Mansur A, Garg T, Shrigiriwar A, et al. Image-Guided Percutaneous Ablation for Primary and Metastatic Tumors. Diagnostics (Basel) 2022;12:1300. [Crossref] [PubMed]
39. Cazzato RL, Jennings JW, Autrusseau PA, et al. Percutaneous image-guided cryoablation of spinal metastases: over 10-year experience in two academic centers. Eur Radiol 2022;32:4137-46. [Crossref] [PubMed]
40. Aycock KN, Campelo SN, Davalos RV. A Comparative Modeling Study of Thermal Mitigation Strategies in Irreversible Electroporation Treatments. J Heat Transfer 2022;144:031206. [Crossref] [PubMed]
41. Tasu JP, Tougeron D, Rols MP. Irreversible electroporation and electrochemotherapy in oncology: State of the art. Diagn Interv Imaging 2022;103:499-509. [Crossref] [PubMed]
42. Belfiore MP, De Chiara M, Reginelli A, et al. An overview of the irreversible electroporation for the treatment of liver metastases: When to use it. Front Oncol 2022;12:943176. [Crossref] [PubMed]
43. Iancu I, Bartoș A, Cioltean CL, Breazu C, Iancu C, Bartoș D. Role of radio-ablative technique for optimizing the survival of patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma Exp Ther Med 2021;22:853. (Review). [Crossref] [PubMed]
44. Hui TC, Kwan J, Pua U. Advanced Techniques in the Percutaneous Ablation of Liver Tumours. Diagnostics (Basel) 2021;11:585. [Crossref] [PubMed]
45. Filippiadis DK, Velonakis G, Kelekis A, et al. The Role of Percutaneous Ablation in the Management of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastatic Disease. Diagnostics (Basel) 2021;11:308. [Crossref] [PubMed]
46. Zhou Y, Yang Y, Zhou B, et al. Challenges Facing Percutaneous Ablation in the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Extension of Ablation Criteria. J Hepatocell Carcinoma 2021;8:625-44. [Crossref] [PubMed]
47. Zhou X, Li H, Qiao Q, et al. CT-guided percutaneous minimally invasive radiofrequency ablation for the relief of cancer related pain from metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients: a retrospective study. Ann Palliat Med 2021;10:1494-502. [Crossref] [PubMed]
48. Mayer T, Cazzato RL, De Marini P, et al. Spinal metastases treated with bipolar radiofrequency ablation with increased (>70°C) target temperature: Pain management and local tumor control. Diagn Interv Imaging 2021;102:27-34. [Crossref] [PubMed]
49. Winkelmann MT, Gohla G, Kübler J, et al. MR-Guided High-Power Microwave Ablation in Hepatic Malignancies: Initial Results in Clinical Routine. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2020;43:1631-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
50. Bastos DCA, Fuentes DT, Traylor J, et al. The use of laser interstitial thermal therapy in the treatment of brain metastases: a literature review. Int J Hyperthermia 2020;37:53-60. [Crossref] [PubMed]
51. Zhang H, Hou X, Cai H, et al. Effects of microwave ablation on T-cell subsets and cytokines of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2017;26:207-11. [Crossref] [PubMed]
52. Callstrom MR, Charboneau JW, Goetz MP, et al. Painful metastases involving bone: feasibility of percutaneous CT- and US-guided radio-frequency ablation. Radiology 2002;224:87-97. [Crossref] [PubMed]
53. Wu L, Fan J, Yuan Q, et al. Computed tomography-guided microwave ablation combined with percutaneous vertebroplasty for treatment of painful high thoracic vertebral metastases. Int J Hyperthermia 2021;38:1069-76. [Crossref] [PubMed]
54. Aceves GR, Rocha ALS, Sevilla E. Pain and Suffering: The Experience of Patients With Terminal Cancer. Pain Manag Nurs 2025;26:456-62. [Crossref] [PubMed]
55. Xia W, Ou M, Chen Y, et al. Experiences of patients with advanced cancer coping with chronic pain: a qualitative analysis. BMC Palliat Care 2024;23:94. [Crossref] [PubMed]
56. Yao Y, Zhu X, Zhang N, et al. Microwave ablation versus radiofrequency ablation for treating spinal metastases. Medicine (Baltimore) 2023;102:e34092. [Crossref] [PubMed]
57. Bertolotti L, Bazzocchi MV, Iemma E, et al. Radiofrequency Ablation, Cryoablation, and Microwave Ablation for the Treatment of Small Renal Masses: Efficacy and Complications. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023;13:388. [Crossref] [PubMed]
58. Shanmugasundaram S, Nadkarni S, Kumar A, et al. Percutaneous Ablative Therapies for the Management of Osteoid Osteomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2021;44:739-49. [Crossref] [PubMed]
59. Flak RV, Malmberg MM, Stender MT, et al. Irreversible electroporation of pancreatic cancer - Effect on quality of life and pain perception. Pancreatology 2021;21:1059-63. [Crossref] [PubMed]