Repeat hepatic resection VS radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis

Author(s):  
Junjie Liu ◽  
Jinming Zhao ◽  
H. A. O. Gu ◽  
Zhiqiang Zhu
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daopeng Yang ◽  
Bowen Zhuang ◽  
Yan Wang ◽  
Xiaoyan Xie ◽  
Xiaohua Xie

Abstract Background The 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. Methods PubMed, 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. Results Ten 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). Conclusion RHR 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.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daopeng Yang ◽  
Bowen Zhuang ◽  
Yan Wang ◽  
Xiaoyan Xie ◽  
Xiaohua Xie

Abstract Background:The 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.Methods:PubMed, 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. Results:Ten 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).Conclusion:RHR 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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 3449
Author(s):  
Rajeev Adhikari ◽  
Tianfu Wen ◽  
Parvani Shrestha ◽  
Pooja Adhikari

There are more literatures on the comparison of the outcome of small HCC between HR and RFA, but rare is about the comparison of the outcome between small solitary HCC and small oligonodular HCC meeting Milan criteria by HR or by RFA. Thus, the aim of the present study is to evaluate the outcome between small solitary HCC and small oligonodular HCC meeting Milan criteria treated by HR or by RFA. Total eighteen studies including 4,823 patients was included in this study. Among them LR group included 2,564 cases, and RFA group included 2,259 cases. We divided them into small solitary HCC sub-group and small oligonodular HCC sub-group and compared the survival difference between them. In the HR group, 1, 3, and 5 years OS of the small solitary HCC sub-group were 93.9%, 81.3%, and 72.0%, and the small oligonodular HCC sub-group were 83.3%, 70.4%, and 45.4%, respectively. For the DFS in the HR group, 1, 3, and 5 years of the small solitary HCC sub-group were 76.4%, 56.0%, and 44.0%, and 65.9%, 40.7%, and 11.1% of the small oligonodular HCC sub-group, respectively. In the RFA group, 1, 3, and 5 years OS of the small solitary HCC sub-group were 91.2%, 74.1%, and 54.5%, and the small oligonodular HCC sub-group were 82.0%, 55.4%, and 38.2%, respectively. For the DFS in the RFA group, 1, 3, and 5years of the small solitary HCC sub-group were 74.1%, 49.8%, and 22.1%, and 62.6% and 37.3%, 8.2% of the small oligonodular HCC sub-group, respectively.


Surgery ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 157 (3) ◽  
pp. 463-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suguru Yamashita ◽  
Taku Aoki ◽  
Yosuke Inoue ◽  
Junichi Kaneko ◽  
Yoshihiro Sakamoto ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document