Dataset Information

Repeat hepatic resection versus percutaneous ablation for the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The efficacy of repeat hepatic resection (rHR) in the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma compared with radiofrequency or microwave ablation after resection of the primary tumour remains controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the safety and efficacy of these procedures.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were systematically searched to identify related studies published before 10 October 2021. Overall and recurrence-free survival after different treatments were compared based on pooled hazard ratios with a random-effects model.

Results

Two randomized clinical trials and 28 observational studies were included, involving 1961 and 2787 patients who underwent rHR and ablation respectively. Median perioperative mortality in both groups was zero but patients in the rHR group had higher median morbidity rates (17.0 per cent) than those in the ablation group (3.3 per cent). rHR achieved significantly longer recurrence-free survival than ablation (HR 0.79, 95 per cent c.i. 0.70 to 0.89, P < 0.001), while both groups had similar overall survival (HR 0.93, 95 per cent c.i. 0.83 to 1.04, P = 0.18).

Conclusion

rHR and ablation based on radio- or microwaves are associated with similar overall survival in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after resection of the primary tumour.

SUBMITTER: Yuan BH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9048940 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Repeat hepatic resection versus percutaneous ablation for the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: meta-analysis.

Yuan Bao-Hong BH Zhu Yan-Kun YK Zou Xu-Ming XM Zhou Hao-Dong HD Li Ru-Hong RH Zhong Jian-Hong JH

BJS open 20220301 2

<h4>Background</h4>The efficacy of repeat hepatic resection (rHR) in the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma compared with radiofrequency or microwave ablation after resection of the primary tumour remains controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the safety and efficacy of these procedures.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were systematically searched to identify relate ...[more]

PMID: 35482024

Similar Datasets

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.

Dataset Information

Repeat hepatic resection versus percutaneous ablation for the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Repeat hepatic resection versus percutaneous ablation for the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets