We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Radiofrequency ablation as an alternative to hepatic resection for single small hepatocellular carcinomas.
British Journal of Surgery 2016 January
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate whether radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is an alternative to surgical resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) within the context of current guidelines.
METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with normal portal pressure and serum bilirubin level who initially underwent liver resection or RFA for a single HCC of maximum size 3 cm. Between-group differences in cumulative rates of survival and recurrence specific for HCC were analysed in the entire cohort and in a propensity score-matched cohort.
RESULTS: A total of 604 patients were enrolled, 273 in the liver resection group and 331 in the RFA group. The 5- and 10-year HCC-specific survival rates for the resection and RFA groups were 87·6 versus 82·1 per cent and 59·0 versus 61·2 per cent respectively (P = 0·214), whereas overall 5- and 10-year recurrence-free survival rates for the corresponding groups were 60·6 versus 39·4 per cent and 37·5 versus 25·1 per cent respectively (P < 0·001). In the propensity score-matched cohort (152 pairs), there were no differences in HCC-specific survival (hazard ratio (HR) 1·03 for RFA versus resection; P = 0·899), whereas recurrence-free survival again differed between the treatment groups (HR 1·75; P < 0·001). RFA was independently associated with poorer outcomes in terms of treatment-site recurrence-free survival (adjusted HR 1·66; P = 0·026), but not non-treatment-site recurrence-free survival (adjusted HR 1·15; P = 0·354).
CONCLUSION: Although RFA carries a higher risk of treatment-site recurrence than hepatic resection, it provides comparable overall survival in patients with a single small HCC without portal hypertension or a raised bilirubin level.
METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with normal portal pressure and serum bilirubin level who initially underwent liver resection or RFA for a single HCC of maximum size 3 cm. Between-group differences in cumulative rates of survival and recurrence specific for HCC were analysed in the entire cohort and in a propensity score-matched cohort.
RESULTS: A total of 604 patients were enrolled, 273 in the liver resection group and 331 in the RFA group. The 5- and 10-year HCC-specific survival rates for the resection and RFA groups were 87·6 versus 82·1 per cent and 59·0 versus 61·2 per cent respectively (P = 0·214), whereas overall 5- and 10-year recurrence-free survival rates for the corresponding groups were 60·6 versus 39·4 per cent and 37·5 versus 25·1 per cent respectively (P < 0·001). In the propensity score-matched cohort (152 pairs), there were no differences in HCC-specific survival (hazard ratio (HR) 1·03 for RFA versus resection; P = 0·899), whereas recurrence-free survival again differed between the treatment groups (HR 1·75; P < 0·001). RFA was independently associated with poorer outcomes in terms of treatment-site recurrence-free survival (adjusted HR 1·66; P = 0·026), but not non-treatment-site recurrence-free survival (adjusted HR 1·15; P = 0·354).
CONCLUSION: Although RFA carries a higher risk of treatment-site recurrence than hepatic resection, it provides comparable overall survival in patients with a single small HCC without portal hypertension or a raised bilirubin level.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Executive Summary: State-of-the-Art Review: Unintended Consequences: Risk of Opportunistic Infections Associated with Long-term Glucocorticoid Therapies in Adults.Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 April 11
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemias: Classifications, Pathophysiology, Diagnoses and Management.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 13
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app