Comparison of hepatic resection and radiofrequency ablation for small hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of 16,103 patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Xu Q
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4246212 | biostudies-other | 2014
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe clinical benefits of treatment with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and repeat hepatic resection (RHR) for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC) remain controversial. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the outcomes and major complications of RFA versus RHR in patients with early-stage RHCC.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for comparative studies on the evaluation of RHR versus RFA for RHCC. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), and the secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and major complications. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model or fixed-effects model, and heterogeneity was tested by the Cochran Q statistic.ResultsTen studies with 1612 patients (RHR = 654, RFA = 958) were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that RHR had superior OS (HR 0.77, 95% CI =0.65-0.92, P = 0.004) and PFS (HR 0.81, 95% CI =0.67-0.98, P = 0.027) compared to RFA, whereas major complications may be less frequent in the RFA group (OR 0.15, 95% CI = 0.06-0.39, P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis of patients with single RHCC ≤3 cm, OS (HR 1.03, 95% CI =0.69-1.52, P = 0.897) and PFS (HR 0.99, 95% CI = 0.71-1.37, P = 0.929) showed no significant differences in the comparison of RHR and RFA. In single RHCC> 3 cm and ≤ 5 cm, RFA showed an increased mortality in terms of OS (HR 0.57, 95% CI = 0.37-0.89, P = 0.014).ConclusionRHR offers a longer OS and PFS than RFA for patients with RHCC, but no statistically significant difference was observed for single RHCC ≤3 cm. The advantages of fewer major complications may render RFA an alternative treatment option for selected patients.
| S-EPMC7693504 | 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:Purpose:Although there are several prospective clinical studies comparing radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and hepatic resection (HR) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, there are few trials that have been performed in strictly homogeneous patients. Methods:Patients who were newly diagnosed with a solitary hepatocellular carcinoma were randomized to the HR or RFA group. Inclusion criteria were as follows: age ? 20 years but ? 70 years, Child-Pugh class A, maximal diameter of the tumor ? 2 cm but ? 4 cm, no previous treatment history, and platelet count > 80,000/mm3. Results:Although the study was early terminated, 29 and 34 patients were enrolled in the HR and RFA groups, respectively, and prospectively followed on an intention-to-treat basis. The 5-year overall survival rates were 83.4% and 86.2% in the HR and RFA groups, respectively, which were not significantly different (P = 0.812 by log-rank, P = 0.990 by Breslow). The 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rates in the HR group were significantly superior to those in the RFA group (66.7%, 44.4% vs. 44.1%, 31.2%, P = 0.071 by log-rank, P = 0.023 by Breslow). Intrahepatic local recurrence tended to develop more frequently in the RFA group (P = 0.042), while the frequency of intrahepatic distant and extrahepatic recurrence was similar bet ween the 2 groups. There were no significant differences in the frequency and severity of complications between the 2 groups. Conclusion:HR was significantly superior to RFA in terms of disease-free survival; however, the overall survival was excellent in both groups.
| S-EPMC5801331 | 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:OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus hepatic resection (HR) for early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) meeting the Milan criteria. METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted, and PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and VIP databases were systematically searched through November 2012 for randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials (RCTs and NRCTs). The Cochrane Collaboration's tool and modified MINORS score were applied to assess the quality of RCTs and NRCTs, respectively. The GRADE approach was employed to evaluate the strength of evidence. RESULTS: Three RCTs and twenty-five NRCTs were included. Among 11,873 patients involved, 6,094 patients were treated with RFA, and 5,779 with HR. The pooled results of RCTs demonstrated no significant difference between groups for 1- and 3-year overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and disease-free survival (DFS) (p>0.05). The 5-year OS (Relative Risk, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.88) and RFS (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.78) were lower with RFA than with HR. The 3- and 5-year recurrences with RFA were higher than with HR (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.94, and RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.97, respectively), but 1-year recurrence and in-hospital mortality showed no significant differences between groups (p>0.05). The complication rate (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.53) was lower and hospital stays (Mean difference -8.77, 95% CI -10.36 to -7.18) were shorter with RFA than with HR. The pooled results of NRCTs showed that the RFA group had lower 1-, 3- and 5-year OS, RFS and DFS, and higher recurrence than the HR group (p<0.05). But for patients with very early stage HCC, RFA was comparable to HR for OS and recurrence. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of RFA is comparable to HR, with fewer complications but higher recurrence, especially for very early HCC patients.
| S-EPMC3880302 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeAlthough surgical resection is usually considered for a single tumor, several reports have suggested that resection can be considered for multiple tumors. The objective of this study was to determine whether resection could provide better long-term outcome for patients with multiple hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) within Milan criteria.MethodsA total of 276 patients with multiple HCCs within Milan criteria with liver function preserved who underwent resection, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), or transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) between 2009 and 2013 were analyzed. Propensity-score (PS) matching was conducted.ResultsFive-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were better in the resection group than that in the RFA or TACE group. Patients who underwent resection had more preserved liver function and different tumor characteristics compared to those received RFA or TACE. With similar baseline characteristics generated in the PS model, there was no difference in 5-year OS among 3 groups (79.5% vs. 72.3% or 62.0%, P = 0.232), but the 5-year RFS was better for patients who received resection than those who received RFA or TACE (51.9% vs. 22.0% or 0.0%, P < 0.001). Although the major complication rate was slightly higher than RFA or TACE, there was no significant difference between the 3 groups before and after PS matching.ConclusionResection was associated with better RFS than RFA or TACE and showed comparable OS in multiple HCC patients within the Milan criteria, but at a cost of slightly increased risk of complication. Resection can be considered as a first-line option if selected appropriately.
| S-EPMC7520230 | 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:Although the disease burden of elderly cancer patients is rapidly increasing, reliable scientific information, value and preference information of domestic patients, and standardized guidelines for determining the treatment of elderly cancer patients are lacking. The aim of this study is to compare the therapeutic effects of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and surgery in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients aged 65 years or older. For the meta-analysis, the databases including PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, OVID Medline, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched. After the abstract-based review by two investigators, selected manuscripts were read in detail. The surgery group showed higher overall survival (OS) (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.22-1.70) and disease-free survival (DFS) (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00-1.97) than the RFA group. This was also shown in small HCC of less than 3 cm (OS, HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.00-2.03; DFS, HR 1.32, 95% CI 0.91-1.91). This might be related to the high local recurrence in the RFA group (OR 4.90, 95% 2.16-11.08). On the other hand, adverse events were significantly lower in the RFA group (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.14-0.36), which led to a decrease in the duration of hospital stay (mean difference -14.88 days, 95% CI -22.44--7.32). In elderly HCC patients, survival in the surgery group was significantly higher than in the RFA group, but various complications tended to increase; so, appropriate patient selection is required.
| S-EPMC10813859 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It remains controversial whether surgical resection, compared to radiofrequency ablation (RFA), improves overall survival (OS) in patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to compare OS after RFA with that after resection for HCC. This retrospective study included patients who underwent RFA or surgical resection as initial treatment for hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related HCC at a very early or early stage. A total of 761 patients (RFA, n = 194; resection, n = 567) from Seoul National University Hospital (Seoul, South Korea) and 1277 patients (RFA, n = 352; resection, n = 925) from the Korean Primary Liver Cancer Registry were included in the hospital and nationwide cohorts, respectively. Primary and secondary endpoints were OS and recurrence-free survival (RFS), respectively. Additional analysis was performed when the history of the antiviral treatment and the type of prescribed nucleos(t)ide analogue were confirmed. The rate of complications was compared between the two treatment groups in the hospital cohort. Baseline characteristics were balanced, using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). In the hospital cohort, the RFA group had a smaller mean tumor size (1.7 vs. 3.9 cm) but a higher proportion of cirrhotic patients than the resection group (85.6% vs. 63.1%) (both p < 0.01). During 81.0 (interquartile range, 62.3-107.1) months of follow-up, there was no difference in OS (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.870, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.400-1.897, p = 0.73) and RFA was associated with shorter RFS (aHR = 1.562, 95% CI = 1.099-2.219, p = 0.01) after employing IPTW. Antiviral treatment was independently associated with longer OS (aHR = 0.444, 95% CI = 0.251-0.786, p = 0.01) as well as RFS (aHR = 0.544, 95% CI = 0.391-0.757, p < 0.01) in the hospital cohort. In the nationwide cohort, there was no difference in OS (aHR = 0.981, 95% CI = 0.661-1.456, p = 0.92) between the two treatment groups when adjusted for antiviral treatment, which was a negative independent risk factor for mortality (aHR = 0.655, 95% CI = 0.451-0.952, p = 0.03) after IPTW. Among patients treated with tenofovir (n = 96) or entecavir (n = 184) in the hospital cohort, there was no difference in either OS (aHR = 0.522, 95% CI = 0.058-4.724, p = 0.56) or RFS (aHR = 1.116, 95% CI = 0.738-1.688, p = 0.60). The overall incidence of complications was higher in the resection group (26.3%) than in the RFA group (13.9%) (p < 0.01). RFA may provide comparable OS to resection in the treatment of very early or early HCC with a lower rate of complications, although RFS is marginally shorter than in the resection group after adjusting for antiviral treatment. Regardless of the type of NA, antiviral treatment in patients with HBV-related HCC is strongly associated with both OS and RFS.
| S-EPMC8657180 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsPubMed, 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.ResultsTwo 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).ConclusionrHR 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.
| S-EPMC9048940 | biostudies-literature