Comparison of laparoscopic hepatectomy and percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Liu F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10913421 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeRadiofrequency ablation is a curative treatment option for very early-stage or earlystage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRFA) for subphrenic tumors is technically challenging. Laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) has been used to overcome this disadvantage. This study compared the treatment outcomes between LRFA and PRFA for subphrenic HCC.MethodsThis retrospective study screened patients who underwent PRFA or LRFA for subphrenic HCC between 2013 and 2018. Therapeutic outcomes, including local tumor progression (LTP), intrahepatic distant recurrence (IDR), extrahepatic metastasis (EM), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS), were compared between the two groups.ResultsThirty patients in the PRFA group and 23 patients in the LRFA group were included. LTP was observed in six patients in the PRFA group (20%), but in no patients in the LRFA group. The cumulative LTP rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 3.7%, 23.4%, and 23.4%, respectively, in the PRFA group and 0.0% in the LRFA group (P=0.015). The IDR, EM, and DFS rates were not significantly different between the two groups (P=0.304, P=0.175, and P=0.075, respectively). The OS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 96.6%, 85.7%, and 71.6%, respectively, in the PRFA group and 100%, 95.7%, and 95.7%, respectively, in the LRFA group (P=0.049).ConclusionLRFA demonstrated better therapeutic outcomes than did PRFA for subphrenic tumors in terms of LTP and OS. Therefore, LRFA can be considered as the first-line treatment option for subphrenic HCC.
| S-EPMC9262669 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aim: To compare the effectiveness of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) with that of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: We conducted a literature search without a language restriction to identify relevant available articles that had been published with the EMBASE and PubMed databases and the Cochrane Library. Studies comparing the outcomes of LH versus RFA for HCC were eligible for inclusion. Results: A total of 10 studies with 1570 patients was included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results revealed that LH was superior to RFA in terms of the 5-year overall survival rate (OR=0.53, 95% CI=0.40, 0.69, p<0.001). In the subgroup analysis of small HCCs, there was still a significantly better 5-year overall survival rate in the LH group compared with the RFA group (OR=0.47, 95% CI=0.33, 0.66, p<0.001). Additionally, the LH group had better 1- and 3-year disease-free survival rate and a lower local recurrence rate, compared with the RFA group. However, the complication rate was higher in the LH group than the RFA group (OR=0.64, 95% CI=0.46, 0.89, p=0.008). Conclusion: Patients who underwent LH had a better long-term prognosis and a lower recurrence rate than those who received RFA. However, we did not obtain conclusive evidence for the superiority of LH over RFA for the treatment of HCCs due to the inclusion of retrospective studies in the present meta-analysis, and well-designed RCTs are needed.
| S-EPMC6600087 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTreatment outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (p-RFA) for small single hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) have not yet been fully compared. The aim of this study was to compare LLR and p-RFA as first-line treatment options in patients with single nodular HCCs ≤3 cm.MethodsFrom January 2014 to December 2016, a total of 566 patients with single nodular HCC ≤3 cm treated by either LLR (n = 251) or p-RFA (n = 315) were included. The recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cumulative incidence of local tumor progression (LTP) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared using the log-rank test. Treatment outcome of 2 treatment modalities was compared in the subgroup of patients according to the tumor location.ResultsThere were no significant differences in overall survival between LLR and p-RFA (p = 0.160); however, 3-year RFS was demonstrated to be significantly higher after LLR (74.4%) than after p-RFA (66.0%) (p = 0.013), owing to its significantly lower cumulative incidence of LTP (2.1% at 3 years after LLR vs. 10.0% after p-RFA, p < 0.001). The complication rate of p-RFA was significantly lower than that of LLR (5.1 vs. 10.0%, p = 0.026). LLR also provided significantly better local tumor control than p-RFA for subscapular tumors (3-year LTP rates: 1.9 vs. 8.8%, p = 0.012), perivascular tumors (3-year LTP rates: 0.0 vs. 17.2%, p = 0.007), and tumors located in anteroinfero-lateral liver portions (3-year LTP rates: 0.0 vs. 10.7%, p < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in LTP rates between LLR and p-RFA for non-subcapsular and non-perivascular tumors (p = 0.482) and for tumors in postero-superior liver portions (p = 0.380).ConclusionsLLR can provide significantly better local tumor control than p-RFA for small single HCCs in subcapsular, perivascular, and anteroinferolateral liver portions and thus may be the preferred treatment option for these tumors.
| S-EPMC7923879 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the effects of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the results have remained inconsistent. Hence, a meta-analysis and a systematic review of these treatment modalities are necessary to evaluate their efficacy and safety for HCC treatment. METHODS:From the inception of this meta-analysis and review until August 31, 2019, we searched Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and China Biomedical Literature Database for RCTs involving LH and RFA treatments of patients with HCC. The studies were screened and the data from these articles were extracted independently by two authors. Summary odd ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each outcome with a fixed- or random-effect model. The outcomes for effectiveness evaluations included duration of surgery, estimated bleeding volume, incidence of blood transfusion during surgery, duration of hospital stay, and the outcome for safety included the incidence of cancer recurrence. RESULTS:Seven RCTs with a total of 615 patients were identified, 312 and 303 of which underwent RFA and LH treatments, respectively. The duration of surgery (MD = -99.04; 95% CI: -131.26--66.82), estimated bleeding volume (MD = -241.97; 95% CI: -386.93--97.02), incidence of blood transfusion during surgery (OR = 0.08; 95% CI: 0.02-0.37), and duration of hospital stay (MD = -3.4; 95% CI: -5.22--1.57) in RFA treatment were significantly lower than those of LH treatment. However, the incidence of cancer recurrence was significantly higher for RFA treatment compared with LH treatment (OR = 2.68; 95% CI: 1.72-4.18). CONCLUSIONS:LH treatment is preferred over RFA treatment with a better radical effect, but RFA treatment is more beneficial with smaller trauma, development of less complications, and shorter operating time when compared with HCC treatment.
| S-EPMC7425008 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Laparoscopic thermal ablation is a common alternative to surgical resection in treating hepatic tumors, particularly in those located in difficult-to-reach locations.The aim of this study was to compare the safety and long-term efficacy of laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) in treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).From February 2009 to May 2015, data from patients with HCC nodules who had undergone either laparoscopic MWA or laparoscopic RFA were examined. Complications, complete ablation rates, local tumor progression (LTP) rates, and disease-free and cumulative survival rates were compared between the two treatment groups.A total of 154 patients with HCC (60 MWA and 94 RFA) were treated via the laparoscopic approach. Major complication rates were identified as 1 and 2 % in the RFA and MWA groups, respectively (p = 0.747). Complete ablation rates were 95 % for both treatment groups (p = 0.931), and LTP rates were 21.2 % for RFA and 8.3 % for MWA (p = 0.034). Disease-free survival rates at 5 years were 19 % in the RFA group and 12 % in the MWA group (p = 0.434), while cumulative survival rates at 5 years were 50 % in the RFA group and 37 % in the MWA group (p = 0.185).Laparoscopic RFA and MWA appear to be safe in the treatment of early-stage HCC. The LTP rates were lower in the laparoscopic MWA group compared with the laparoscopic RFA group, but their respective overall and disease-free survival rates remained similar.
| S-EPMC5827943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a curative modality for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who are not suitable for resection. It remains controversial whether a surgical or percutaneous approach is more appropriate for HCC. Method: A search was performed on the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from the date of database inception until April 17, 2021. Studies reporting outcomes of comparisons between surgical RFA (SRFA) and percutaneous RFA (PRFA) were included in this study. The meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0 software. Result: A total of 10 retrospective studies containing 12 cohorts, involving 740 patients in the PRFA group and 512 patients in the SRFA group, were selected. Although the tumor size in PRFA group was smaller than the SRFA group (p = 0.007), there was no significant difference in complete ablation rate between the SRFA and PRFA groups (95.63% and 97.33%, respectively; Odds ratio [OR], 0.56; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.26-1.24; p = 0.15). However, the SRFA group showed a significantly lower local tumor recurrence than the PRFA group in the sensitivity analysis (28.7% in the PRFA group and 21.79% in the SRFA group, respectively; OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.14-2.95; p = 0.01). Pooled analysis data showed that the rate of severe perioperative complications did not differ significantly between the PRFA and SRFA groups (14.28% and 12.11%, respectively; OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.67-2.53; p = 0.44). There was no significant difference in the 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates, as well as the 1- and 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) between the PRFA and SRFA groups. The 5-year DFS of the PRFA group was significantly lower than the SRFA group (hazard ratio 0.73; 95% CI 0.54-0.99). Conclusion: Based on our meta-analysis, the surgical route was superior to PRFA in terms of local control rate. Furthermore, the surgical approach did not increase the risk of major complications.
| S-EPMC8763842 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the therapeutic effects of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and surgical hepatic resection (HR) in the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Thirty-one studies were included in the analysis. A total of 16,103 patients were involved: 8,252 treated with RFA and 7,851 with HR. Compared to the RFA group, the 3, 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates in the HR group were significantly higher. On the other hand, complications were significantly fewer and hospital-stay was significantly shorter in the RFA group than in the HR group. In subgroup analyses, the overall and disease-free survival in the HR group were also significantly higher than those in the RFA group for HCCs ≤ 3 cm, whereas there were no significant differences between the two groups for HCCs ≤ 2 cm. Our analysis showed that although HR was associated with higher complication rate and longer hospital-stay, HR is proposed as the first-line treatment rather than RFA for patients with HCCs larger than 2 cm. For patients with HCCs of 2 cm or less, RFA may be an alternative to HR because of their comparable long-term efficacy.
| S-EPMC4246212 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceRepeat hepatectomy and percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRFA) are most commonly used to treat early-stage recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC) after initial resection, but previous studies comparing the effectiveness of the 2 treatments have reported conflicting results.ObjectiveTo compare the long-term survival outcomes after repeat hepatectomy with those after PRFA among patients with early-stage RHCC.Design, setting, and participantsThis open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital and the National Center for Liver Cancer of China. A total of 240 patients with RHCC (with a solitary nodule diameter of ≤5 cm; 3 or fewer nodules, each ≤3 cm in diameter; and no macroscopic vascular invasion or distant metastasis) were randomized 1:1 to receive repeat hepatectomy or PRFA between June 3, 2010, and January 15, 2013. The median (range) follow-up time was 44.3 (4.3-90.6) months (last follow-up, January 15, 2018). Data analysis was conducted from June 15, 2018, to September 28, 2018.InterventionsRepeat hepatectomy (n = 120) or PRFA (n = 120).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included repeat recurrence-free survival (rRFS), patterns of repeat recurrence, and therapeutic safety.ResultsAmong the 240 randomized patients (216 men [90.0%]; median [range] age, 53.0 [24.0-59.0] years), 217 completed the trial. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year OS rates were 92.5% (95% CI, 87.9%-97.3%), 65.8% (95% CI, 57.8%-74.8%), and 43.6% (95% CI, 35.5%-53.5%), respectively, for the repeat hepatectomy group and 87.5% (95% CI, 81.8%-93.6%), 52.5% (95% CI, 44.2%-62.2%), and 38.5% (95% CI, 30.6%-48.4%), respectively, for the PRFA group (P = .17). The corresponding 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year rRFS rates were 85.0% (95% CI, 78.8%-91.6%), 52.4% (95% CI, 44.2%-62.2%), and 36.2% (95% CI, 28.5%-46.0%), respectively, for the repeat hepatectomy group and 74.2% (95% CI, 66.7%-82.4%), 41.7% (95% CI, 33.7%-51.5%), and 30.2% (95% CI, 22.9%-39.8%), respectively, for the PRFA group (P = .09). Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation was associated with a higher incidence of local repeat recurrence (37.8% vs 21.7%, P = .04) and early repeat recurrence than repeat hepatectomy (40.3% vs 23.3%, P = .04). In subgroup analyses, PRFA was associated with worse OS vs repeat hepatectomy among patients with an RHCC nodule diameter greater than 3 cm (hazard ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.05-2.84) or an α fetoprotein level greater than 200 ng/mL (hazard ratio, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.15-2.96). Surgery had a higher complication rate than did ablation (22.4% vs 7.3%, P = .001).Conclusions and relevanceNo statistically significant difference was observed in survival outcomes after repeat hepatectomy vs PRFA for patients with early-stage RHCC. Repeat hepatectomy may be associated with better local disease control and long-term survival in patients with an RHCC diameter greater than 3 cm or an AFP level greater than 200 ng/mL.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00822562.
| S-EPMC6902111 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the long-term therapeutic efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus that of surgical resection in small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).MethodsRelevant articles in English from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were retrieved. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated to assess the prognostic value of RFA compared with that of surgical resection.ResultsA total of 19 studies involving 15,071 patients were included. The combined HRs (95% confidence interval [CI]) of RFA for recurrence/relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were 1.55 (95% CI = 1.29-1.86, I2 = 72.5%) and 1.61 (95% CI = 1.29-2.01, I2 = 60.4%), respectively, compared with surgical resection. In subgroup analyses according to study design, both RFS and OS of the prospective subgroups showed statistical significance, and no statistical heterogeneity existed between studies.ConclusionOur clinical data suggest that surgical resection offers better long-term oncologic outcomes than RFA.
| S-EPMC7899892 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic outcomes of transarterial chemoembolization combined with radiofrequency ablation (TACE + RFA) for hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC) measuring ≤3 cm infeasible for ultrasound (US)-guided percutaneous RFA.MethodsTwenty-four patients who underwent fluoroscopy-guided TACE + RFA for single HCC between January 2012 and December 2016 were screened. To evaluate the TACE + RFA outcomes compared with those of US-guided RFA, 371 patients who underwent US-guided RFA during the same period were screened. We compared local tumor progression (LTP) and intrahepatic distant recurrence (IDR) between the two groups before and after propensity score (PS) matching, and performed univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analyses for all patients.ResultsPS matching yielded 21 and 42 patients in the TACE + RFA and US-guided RFA groups, respectively. Cumulative LTP rates after PS matching were not significantly different between the two groups at 1 (0.0% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.072), 2 (10.5% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.701), and 5 years (16.9% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.531). IDR rates did not differ significantly between the two groups at 1 (20.6% vs. 10%, p = 0.307), 2 (25.9% vs. 25.9%, p = 0.999), or 5 years (49.9% vs. 53%, p = 0.838). Multivariable analysis showed that treatment type was not a significant factor for LTP or IDR.ConclusionThe outcomes of TACE + RFA for HCC were similar to those of general US-guided RFA. Fluoroscopy-guided TACE + RFA may be an effective treatment when US-guided RFA is not feasible.
| S-EPMC10650828 | biostudies-literature