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: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: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:BACKGROUND: The optimal therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is transplantation. For all those patients not eligible for transplantation (or on the waiting list) among the treatments of choice used more frequently in recent years are resection (RES) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). RFA is less efficacious for HCC ranging over 3 cm. The aim of this study was to compare RFA to RES in a restricted cohort of patients with a single naive HCC ranging from 3 to 5 cm in size and without end-stage liver disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS. A total of 102 patients who had never been treated before were enrolled. Those patients whose HCC position would have required too much parenchymal loss at RES (central or close to main vascular structures) were treated with RFA (n=60), and the others underwent RES (n=42). The two groups were similar for HCC size and liver disease status. The outcome was considered in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Differences among groups were validated by log-rank test. RESULTS: The RES group seemed to present a better long-term OS (91%, 57%, and 43% vs 96%, 53%, and 32% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively) and DFS (74%, 35%, and 14% vs 68%, 18%, and 0%, respectively) but there was no statistical significance. Age, gender, virus etiology, HCC size and alpha-fetoprotein levels did not correlate with survival. Patients with recurrence within the first 12 months after treatment showed a worse long-term survival (p=0.011). Patients in Child-Pugh class B had poor prognoses compared with those in class A (p=0.047). CONCLUSION: Even if RES seemed to promise better long-term results, in the medium term this difference had no statistical significance. Survival in this series was more closely related to the stage of the underlying liver disease than to treatment (RES/RFA).
| S-EPMC2215355 | biostudies-other
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:ObjectiveRecurrence after curative resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major cause of death from this disease. Factors of primary curative resection are available and potential in the prognosis of follow-up treatment. Our aim was to assess the prognostic significance of primary curative resection factors in recurrent HCC patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation therapy (RFA).MethodsIn this retrospective study, we assessed 235 patients who underwent limited RFA of HCC recurrences (tumors ≤ 5 cm; nodules ≤ 3) after primary curative resection. Factors of primary curative resection were collected, and overall survival and recurrence-free survival were evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify significant prognostic factors.ResultsAfter a median follow-up of 36 months, 54 patients died, and 128 patients had hepatic recurrence. On univariate analyses, patients whose primary tumors were less differentiated (p = 0.032 and p = 0.048) and required less time to recur (p = 0.013 and p = 0.001) after curative resection displayed poorer overall survival and higher recurrence rates following RFA. On multivariate analyses, the pathologic tumor grade (p = 0.026 and p = 0.038) and recurrence-free survival after primary curative resection (p = 0.028 and p < 0.001) emerged as independent risk factors of survival and HCC recurrence.ConclusionsPrimary tumor differentiation and time to recurrence after curative resection are viable prognostic factors of overall survival and further recurrence risk in patients undergoing RFA of recurrent HCC.
| S-EPMC7801068 | biostudies-literature