Dataset Information

Long-term outcome of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for periportal hepatocellular carcinoma: tumor recurrence or progression, survival and clinical significance.

ABSTRACT:

Background/aim

Recent studies have suggested that periportal location of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is considered as one of the independent risk factors for local tumor progression (LTP). However, the long-term therapeutic outcomes of percutaneous RFA as the first-line therapy for single periportal HCCand corresponding impacts on tumor recurrence or progression are still unclear.

Materials and methods

From February 2011 to October 2020, a total of 233 patients with single nodular HCC ≤ 5 cm who underwent RFA ± transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) as first-line therapy was enrolled and analyzed, including 56 patients in the periportal group and 177 patients in the nonperiportal group. The long-term therapeutic outcomes between the two groups were compared, risk factors of tumor recurrence or progression were evaluated.

Results

The LTP rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were significantly higher in the periportal group than those in the nonperiportal group (15.7, 33.7, and 46.9% vs 6.0, 15.7, and 28.7%, respectively, P = 0.0067). The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates in the periportal group were significantly worse than those in the nonperiportal group (81.3, 65.1 and 42.9% vs 99.3, 90.4 and 78.1%, respectively, P<0.0001). In the subgroup of single HCC ≤ 3 cm, patients with periportal HCC showed significantly worse LTP P = 0.0006) and OS (P<0.0001) after RFA than patients with single nonperiportal HCC; The univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that tumor size, periportal HCC and AFP ≥ 400ug/ml were independent prognostic factors for tumor progression after RFA. Furthermore, patients with single periportal HCC had significantly higher risk for IDR(P = 0.0012), PVTT(P<0.0001) and extrahepatic recurrence(P = 0.0010) after RFA than those patients with single nonperiportal HCC. .

Conclusion

The long-term therapeutic outcomes of RFA as the first-line therapy for single periportal HCC were worse than those for single nonperiportal HCC, an increased higher risk of tumor recurrence or progression after RFA was significantly associated with periportal HCC.

SUBMITTER: Cao S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8725335 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.