Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Cryoablation may offer greater tumor reduction and fewer adverse events than HIFU for breast fibroadenoma

Cryoablation may offer greater tumor reduction and fewer adverse events than HIFU for breast…
Photo by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
Consider cryoablation as a potentially more effective and safer option than HIFU for breast fibroadenoma, but recognize the evidence is limited.

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and cryoablation as minimally invasive treatments for breast fibroadenoma. The analysis included seventeen prospective single-arm studies. The primary outcomes were tumor volume reduction at 6 and 12 months and treatment-related adverse events.

For HIFU, the tumor volume reduction rate was reported at 6 and 12 months, though heterogeneity was high. Descriptive findings for cryoablation suggested greater volume reduction than HIFU. Adverse event rates were lower with cryoablation compared with HIFU, and no severe complications were reported for either modality.

The authors note several limitations: the predominance of non-randomized single-arm studies, substantial data heterogeneity, and incomplete statistical reporting for cryoablation that prevented quantitative pooling. Direct comparative data were lacking.

Clinically, both HIFU and cryoablation appear effective and safe for breast fibroadenoma. Cryoablation may offer superior tumor reduction and fewer adverse events, but these conclusions are tentative given the observational nature of the evidence. Well-designed comparative trials are needed.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedMay 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
MethodsUp to October 2025, a systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Eligible studies included patients with confirmed breast fibroadenoma treated with high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) or cryoablation in prospective or retrospective observational designs, with a sample size >10 and extractable outcome data. The primary outcomes were tumor volume reduction at 6 and 12 months and treatment-related adverse events. In the absence of direct comparative studies, a random-effects meta-analysis of prospective single-arm studies was performed. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS).ResultsSeventeen prospective single-arm studies were included. HIFU achieved pooled tumor volume reduction rates of 54.4% at 6 months and 70.3% at 12 months, with substantial heterogeneity at 12 months (I² = 92.8%). Quantitative pooling for cryoablation was not feasible due to incomplete statistical reporting; descriptive findings suggested greater volume reduction than HIFU. The pooled adverse event rates were 23% for HIFU and 7% for cryoablation (p < 0.05), with significant heterogeneity in both groups (HIFU: I² = 95.6%; cryoablation: I² = 59.2%). No severe complications were reported.ConclusionBoth HIFU and cryoablation are effective and safe minimally invasive treatments for breast fibroadenomas. Cryoablation may provide superior tumor reduction and fewer adverse events. However, conclusions are limited by the predominance of non-randomized single-arm studies and data heterogeneity. Further high-quality comparative studies are needed.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.