Meta-analysis of Percutaneous vs. Surgical Approaches Radiofrequency Ablation in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

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.

Download Full-text

Radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis

BMC Gastroenterology ◽

10.1186/s12876-020-01544-0 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Daopeng Yang ◽

Bowen Zhuang ◽

Yan Wang ◽

Xiaoyan Xie ◽

Xiaohua Xie

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Radiofrequency Ablation ◽

Hepatic Resection ◽

Fixed Effects ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Major Complications ◽

Alternative Treatment Option ◽

Significant Difference

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.

Download Full-text

Is transcatheter arterial chemoembolization plus sorafenib better than chemoembolization plus placebo in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma?

Tumori Journal ◽

10.1177/0300891620945029 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 030089162094502

Author(s):

Yong Xie ◽

Huan Tian ◽

Hua Xiang

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Survival Rates ◽

Complete Response ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Arterial Chemoembolization

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus sorafenib compared with TACE plus placebo for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using meta-analytical techniques. Methods: A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were done from inception to December 27, 2019. Published trials including a treatment group receiving TACE + sorafenib and a control group receiving TACE + placebo with data for at least 1-year survival or tumor response or time to progression were included. Results: Our study suggested that there was no evidence that TACE plus sorafenib was associated with a lower risk of disease progression compared with TACE plus placebo for treatment of HCC (hazard ratio 0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84–1.05]), and no significant difference for treatment of HCC compared with TACE plus placebo in terms of 0.5-, 1-, 1.5-, and 2-year survival rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.01 [95% CI, 0.97–1.05]; RR 1.00 [95% CI, 0.92–1.08], RR 1.04 [95% CI, 0.89–1.23], RR 0.98 [95% CI, 0.72–1.34], respectively). The meta-analysis also showed that TACE + sorafenib seemed to have no significant difference for treatment of HCC compared with TACE + placebo in terms of complete response, partial response, stable disease, progressive disease, overall response rate, and disease control rate. There was an increased incidence of fatigue of grade 3/4 and elevation of aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase of grade 3/4 in patients receiving TACE plus sorafenib compared with those receiving TACE plus placebo. Conclusions: There is no additive benefit of TACE plus sorafenib compared to TACE plus placebo for HCC.

Download Full-text

Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Hepatic Resection for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Meta-analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-97721/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Daopeng Yang ◽

Bowen Zhuang ◽

Yan Wang ◽

Xiaoyan Xie ◽

Xiaohua Xie

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Radiofrequency Ablation ◽

Hepatic Resection ◽

Fixed Effects ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Major Complications ◽

Alternative Treatment Option ◽

Significant Difference

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.

Download Full-text

The effects of several postoperative adjuvant therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma patients with microvascular invasion after curative resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cancer Cell International ◽

10.1186/s12935-021-01790-6 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Jiarui Yang ◽

Hao Liang ◽

Kunpeng Hu ◽

Zhiyong Xiong ◽

Mingbo Cao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Conservative Treatment ◽

Curative Resection ◽

Postoperative Radiotherapy ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Microvascular Invasion ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Conservative Group ◽

Adjuvant Therapies ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Background For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with microvascular invasion (MVI) after curative resection, the effects of various postoperative adjuvant therapies are not summarized in detail, and the comparison between the effects of various adjuvant therapies is still unclear. Thus, we collected existing studies on postoperative adjuvant therapies for patients with HCC with MVI after curative resection and analyzed the effects of various adjuvant therapies. Method We collected all studies on postoperative adjuvant therapy for patients with HCC with MVI after curative resection from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and SinoMed ending on May 1, 2019. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free/recurrence-free survival (RFS) between each group were compared in these studies by calculating the pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). All statistical analyses were assessed by two authors independently. Result A total of 13 studies were included in this study, including 824 postoperative adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization (pa-TACE) patients, 90 postoperative radiotherapy patients, 57 radiofrequency ablation (RFA)/re-resection patients, 16 sorafenib patients and 886 postoperative conservative treatment patients. The results showed that pa-TACE significantly improved OS and RFS compared with postoperative conservative treatment in patients with HCC with MVI after curative resection (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55–0.74, p < 0.001; HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.62–0.78, p < 0.001, respectively). There was no significant difference in OS between pa-TACE and radiotherapy in patients with HCC with MVI (HR: 1.75, 95% CI: 0.92–3.32, p = 0.087). RFS in patients with HCC with MVI after pa-TACE was worse than that after postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy (HR: 2.29, 95% CI: 1.43–3.65, p < 0.001). The prognosis of pa-TACE and RFA/re-resection in patients with MVI with recurrent HCC had no significant differences (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.09–4.89, p = 0.671). Adjuvant treatments significantly improved the OS and RFS of patients compared with the postoperative conservative group (HR: 0.580, 95% CI: 0.480–0.710, p < 0.001; HR: 0.630, 95% CI: 0.540–0.740, p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion Compared with postoperative conservative treatment, pa-TACE, postoperative radiotherapy and sorafenib can improve the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with microvascular invasion after curative resection. Postoperative radiotherapy can reduce the recurrence of patients with HCC with MVI after curative resection compared with pa-TACE.

Download Full-text

Individual or combined transcatheter arterial chemoembolization and radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a time-to-event meta-analysis

World Journal of Surgical Oncology ◽

10.1186/s12957-021-02188-4 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Chuang Jiang ◽

Gong Cheng ◽

Mingheng Liao ◽

Jiwei Huang

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Radiofrequency Ablation ◽

Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Combined Treatment ◽

Similar Rate ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽

Knowledge Infrastructure ◽

Arterial Chemoembolization

Abstract Background There is still some debate as to whether transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is better than TACE or RFA alone. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of TACE plus RFA for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with RFA or TACE alone. Methods We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) for all relevant randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies reporting overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and complications of TACE plus RFA for HCC, compared with RFA or TACE alone. Results Twenty-one studies involving 3413 patients were included. TACE combined with RFA was associated with better OS (hazard ratio [HR]=0.62, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 0.55–0.71, P < 0.001) and RFS (HR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.39–0.69, P < 0.001) than TACE alone; compared with RFA alone, TACE plus RFA resulted in longer OS (HR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.53–0.75, P < 0.001) and RFS (HR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.51–0.71, P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses by tumor size also showed that combined treatment resulted in better OS and RFS compared with RFA alone in patients with HCC larger than 3 cm. Combined treatment resulted in similar rate of major complications compared with TACE or RFA alone (OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 0.99–3.20, P = 0.05; OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.42–2.38, P = 1.00, respectively). Conclusions TACE combined with RFA was more effective for HCC than TACE alone. For patients with a tumor larger than 3 cm, the combined treatment also achieved a better effect than RFA alone.

Download Full-text

Survival Impact of Ovarian Preservation on Women With Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer ◽

10.1097/igc.0000000000000857 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 27 (1) ◽

pp. 77-84 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Haifeng Gu ◽

Jundong Li ◽

Yangkui Gu ◽

Hua Tu ◽

Yun Zhou ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Endometrial Cancer ◽

Early Stage ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Disease Free Survival ◽

Premenopausal Women ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Ovarian Preservation ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Early Stage Endometrial Cancer

ObjectiveThe aim of this article was to investigate the survival impact of ovarian preservation in surgically treated patients with early-stage endometrial cancer using a meta-analysis.MethodsMajor online databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, as well as Grey Literature database, were searched to collect studies on the effects of ovarian preservation compared with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) for surgical treatment in endometrial cancer patients. The literature search was performed up to April 2016. The results were analyzed using RevMan 5.0 software and Stata/SE 12.0 software.ResultsTotally, 7 retrospective cohort studies including 1419 patients in ovarian preservation group and 15,826 patients in BSO group were enrolled. Meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in overall survival between the patients treated with ovarian preservation and BSO (hazards ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72–1.39; P = 1.00). Similar result was achieved in the young and premenopausal women (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.70–1.39; P = 0.39). Furthermore, the disease-free survival of patients whose ovaries were preserved was slightly compromised but with no statistical significance (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.56–3.93; P = 0.42).ConclusionsOvarian preservation may be safe in patients with early-stage endometrial cancer, and it could be cautiously considered in treating young and premenopausal women because it is not associated with an adverse impact on the patients’ survival. Given the inherent limitations of the included studies, further well-designed randomized controlled trial are needed to confirm and update this analysis.

Download Full-text

Partial Versus Total Omentectomy in Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cancers ◽

10.3390/cancers13194971 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 (19) ◽

pp. 4971

Author(s):

Shion Wei Chai ◽

Suo-Hsien Wang ◽

Chih-Yuan Wang ◽

Yi-Chan Chen ◽

Ruey-Shyang Soong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gastric Cancer ◽

Overall Survival ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Disease Free Survival ◽

Systemic Review ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Free Survival ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Hospital Stays ◽

Disease Free

Background: Surgical treatment is the key to cure localized gastric cancer. There is no strong evidence that supports the value of omentectomy. Thus, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficiency of partial and total omentectomy in patients with gastric cancer. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. All studies that compared total and partial omentectomy as treatments for gastric cancer were included. The primary outcomes were patients’ overall survival and disease-free survival, while the secondary outcomes were perioperative outcome and postoperative complications. Results: A total of nine studies were examined, wherein 1043 patients were included in the partial omentectomy group, and 1995 in the total omentectomy group. The partial omentectomy group was associated with better overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.98, p = 0.04, I2 = 0%), shorter operative time, and lesser blood loss than the total omentectomy group. In addition, no statistically significant difference was observed in the number of dissected lymph nodes, length of hospital stays, complication rate, and disease-free survival. Conclusions: Our results show that, compared with total omentectomy in gastric cancer surgery, partial omentectomy had non-inferior oncological outcomes and comparable safety outcomes.

Download Full-text

Impact of spontaneous hepatocellular carcinoma rupture on surgical outcome after liver resection: a systemic review and meta-analysis

10.21203/rs.2.19071/v2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Wei Zhang ◽

Zhi-Yong Huang ◽

Chang Shu

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Liver Resection ◽

Recurrence Rate ◽

Surgical Outcome ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Systemic Review ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Tumor Rupture ◽

Significant Difference ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background Spontaneous tumor rupture is a rare but life-threatening complication of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The impact of spontaneous ruptured HCC on long-term survival after liver resection (LR) remains unclear. Our aim was to compare the surgical outcome in patients who underwent LR with ruptured and non-ruptured HCC . Methods A comprehensive search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Science Citation Index Expanded databases was performed. The primary outcomes were the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival ( OS) and disease free survival (DFS). The secondary outcomes included morbidity, hospital mortality and recurrence rate . Results Ten retrospective studies including 3222 patients met the inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis revealed a significantly poorer OS and DFS for patients with ruptured HCC compared to patients with non-ruptured HCC (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.61-2.54; P< 0.00001 and HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.56-2.35; P<0.00001, respectively). In the subgroup analysis, both the propensity score matching (PSM) and non-PSM studies demonstrated a significantly poorer OS in the ruptured HCC group (P=0.02 and P<0.00001, respectively). However, meta-analysis of two PSM studies showed that there was not significant difference in the DFS between the two groups (P=0.50). Patients in the ruptured HCC group had a higher mortality and recurrence rate than the non-ruptured HCC group, but the difference was not significant (P = 0.05 and P = 0.06, respectively) Conclusions Surgical outcomes of the patients with the ruptured or non-ruptured HCC undergoing LR were not only affected by tumor rupture itself, but also by the tumor characteristics and liver functional status. Therefore, classifying all ruptured but resectable HCC as T4 stage is unable to accurately represent their true prognosis.

Download Full-text

Prognostic Influence of Spontaneous Tumor Rupture in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Hepatectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

10.21203/rs.3.rs-665806/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Jiaxuan Xu ◽

Lihu Gu ◽

Binbin Xu ◽

Yuexiu Si ◽

Yujing He ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Risk Factor ◽

Hepatic Resection ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Disease Free Survival ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Tumor Rupture ◽

Free Survival ◽

Spontaneous Tumor ◽

Ruptured Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Abstract Background: This study aims to comprehensively analyze the influence of spontaneous tumor rupture on the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma patients following hepatic resection.Methods: We systematically searched four online electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, for eligible studies published from inception to March 2021. The main endpoints were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).Results: This meta-analysis included 21 observational articles with 57241 cases. The results revealed that spontaneous tumor rupture was associated with worse OS (hazard ratio (HR), 1.65; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.33-2.05) and DFS (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.12-1.80) in resectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients. This phenomenon was observed in most subgroups, which were classified by recorded survival time, age, country, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) concentration, liver cirrhosis, and microvascular invasion. However, in subgroups of macrovascular invasion positive, spontaneous tumor rupture was not a risk factor for OS (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.99-2.42) and DFS (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.91-1.65) in hepatocellular carcinoma patients after hepatectomy. For macrovascular invasion negative, compared with non-ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma patients, ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma patients exhibited worse prognosis for OS (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.99-2.42) and DFS (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.91-1.65) following hepatectomy.Conclusions: Spontaneous tumor rupture was a prognostic risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma patients after hepatic resection. However, in macrovascular invasion patients, spontaneous tumor rupture was not a prognostic risk factor.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Radiofrequency Ablation with or without Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

10.21203/rs.3.rs-390558/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Xinxin Wang ◽

Yang Che ◽

Shiyong Chen ◽

Biao Wu ◽

Yu He ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Radiofrequency Ablation ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Tumor Progression ◽

Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Arterial Chemoembolization

Abstract Background To evaluate the curative effect and safety of compare radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with or without transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)with the help of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) . Materials and Methods RCTs comparing TACE combined with RFA and RFA alone were searched electronically using PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. Fixed and random-effects were used to measure pooled estimates. Research indicators included overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFA), tumor progression and complications. Results Overall, 6 RCTs were included in this meta-analysis, with a total of 527 patients (TACE-RFA: 271; RFA: 256). 3- and5-year OS rate was higher in the TACE-RFA group than in the RFA group (OR = 1.74; 95% CI: 1.17–2.59; p = 0.006; OR = 2.19; 95% CI: 1.49–3.22; p < 0.0001). The 3- and 5-year RFS rate in the TACE-RFA group was higher than that in the RFA group (OR = 1.92, 95% CI: 1.30 ~ 2.82, p = 0.0009; OR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.21 ~ 2.70, p = 0.004, respectively). The rate of tumor progression was lower in the TACE-RFA group than in the RFA group (OR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.38 ~ 0.85; p = 0.005). No significant differences in terms of 1-year OS rate and complications rate were observed between groups.

Download Full-text