Outcome of No-Touch Radiofrequency Ablation for Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Clinical Trial

Radiology ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 210309
Author(s):  
Dong Ho Lee ◽  
Min Woo Lee ◽  
Pyo Nyun Kim ◽  
Young Joon Lee ◽  
Hee Sun Park ◽  
...  
Liver Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Sae-Jin Park ◽  
Eun Ju Cho ◽  
Jeong-Hoon Lee ◽  
Su Jong Yu ◽  
Yoon Jun Kim ◽  
...  

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> A switching monopolar no-touch radiofrequency ablation (RFA) technique is used for small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, there have not been any randomized clinical trials comparing this technique to the conventional RFA technique. <b><i>Objective:</i></b>This study aims to compare the results of two RFA techniques, and to comparatively identify more effective methods to reduce the progression of local tumors associated with small HCC (≤2.5 cm). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This prospective randomized clinical trial (NCT03375281) recruited a total of 116 participants (M:F, 93:23; 68.3 ± 8.4 years) between October 2016 and September 2017. The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of local tumor progression (LTP) after RFA. Secondary outcomes included technical success rate, technique efficacy, and RFA procedure characteristics. Kaplan-Meier analysis and the Cox proportional hazard regression model were used. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The mean follow-up period was 24.1 months. A sufficient ablative margin was more frequently achieved in the no-touch RFA group (57/60 = 95%) than in the conventional RFA group (50/64 = 78.1%) on immediate follow-up CT (<i>p</i> = 0.01). The cumulative incidence of LTP in the no-touch RFA group was significantly lower than that in the conventional RFA group (<i>p</i> = 0.02). In multivariable analysis, no-touch RFA was the only predictive factor for LTP (<i>p</i> = 0.04, hazard ratio = 0.2, 95% confidence interval = 0.04–0.94). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> A switching monopolar no-touch RFA technique is a favorable treatment option and provides lower LTP after RFA compared with conventional RFA for small HCC.


Tumor Biology ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 2105-2110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zheng-Yu Lin ◽  
Qian-Qian Song ◽  
Jin Chen ◽  
Ren-Jun Wan ◽  
Hui Zheng ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tian-pei Guan ◽  
Chi-hua Fang ◽  
Jian Yang ◽  
Nan Xiang ◽  
Qing-shan Chen ◽  
...  

Background. Treatment selection for small hepatocellular carcinoma (sHCC) is controversial. We aimed to compare the outcomes of medical imaging three-dimensional visualization system (MI-3DVS) guided surgical resection (SR) and ultrasonography guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for sHCC.Methods. In total, 194 patients who underwent SR or RFA in our hospital between January 2006 and May 2010 were retrospectively enrolled. Overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and postoperative complications were compared. Cox regression was used to estimate the benefits of MI-3DVS-guided SR on OS and RFS.Results. Ninety-two patients underwent SR and 102 underwent RFA. The SR group experienced more complications (41.3% versus 19.6%) and longer hospital stay (18.04±7.11versus13.06±5.59) (bothp<0.05). The 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year OS was 96.7%, 95.7%, 93.5%, 83.5%, and 61.1% in the SR group and 95.0%, 88.1%, 72.7%, 56.9%, and 39.5% in the RFA group. Corresponding RFS was 95.7%, 94.6%, 84.7%, 59.8%, and 40.2% in SR group and 91.2%, 80.3%, 60.5%, 32.3%, and 22.3% in RFA group. The 5-year OS and RFS were higher in SR group (bothp<0.001). Interestingly, there was no significance in OS and RFS among subgroups aged >60 years. Independent predictors of OS and RFS, respectively, were intervention (HR, 2.769 and 1.933), tumor number (HR, 5.128 and 3.903), and serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) (HR, 1.871 and 1.474) (allp<0.05).Conclusions. MI-3DVS based hepatectomy should be considered primary treatment while RFA can be treated as alternative therapy for older patients. Intervention, tumor number, and AFP are independent predictors for both survival and recurrence.


2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (9) ◽  
pp. 640-646 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ken Nakajima ◽  
Takashi Yamanaka ◽  
Atsuhiro Nakatsuka ◽  
Takaki Haruyuki ◽  
Masashi Fujimori ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document