Dataset Information

Efficacy of percutaneous ethanol injection versus radiofrequency ablation for single hepatocellular carcinoma no larger than 5 cm.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the efficacy of percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) of no larger than 5 cm.

Methods

The data used in this study were retrieved from the SEER database. In total, 3510 patients diagnosed with HCC of no larger than 5 cm who received PEI or RFA were included.

Results

The median overall survival (mOS) and median cancer-specific survival (mCSS) of RFA-treated patients were not significantly longer than those of PEI-treated patients either before or after propensity score matching (PSM). The subgroup analysis showed that patients with HCC of no larger than 2 cm, HCC of larger than 2 cm, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage I and II, and AJCC stage III and IV who received RFA had mOS and mCSS similar to those of patients who received PEI after PSM. Multivariable regression analysis showed that PEI did not increase the all-cause mortality risk or cancer-specific mortality risk after PSM.

Conclusion

RFA is still the better choice for patients with a single HCC of no more than 5 cm. However, PEI might be a good choice for these patients who cannot be treated with RFA.

SUBMITTER: Yang P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9310248 | 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.