OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the curative effect of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and hepatic resection (RES) for small hepatocarcinoma eligible for Milan criterion using meta analysis method. METHODS: Retrieved clinical trials comparing percutaneous radiofrequency ablation with RES for small hepatocarcinoma published from 1990 to 2010. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate overall survival and disease free survival. A fixed random effect model or random effect model was established to collect the data. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials were included in this analysis. These studies included a total of 539 patients: 252 treated with percutaneous RFA and 287 treated with RES. The differences in overall survival were not statistically significant between RFA and RES (P > 0.05). In the patients treated with RES group, the 2-, 3- and 4-years disease free survival rates were significantly better than that in the patients treated with percutaneous RFA (P < 0.05). The postoperative morbidity rate was significant lower in patients treated with percutaneous RFA (OR: 0.14, 95%CI: 0.09 - 0.22, P = 0.000). But percutaneous RFA had a higher rate of tumor recurrence compared to RES (OR: 2.63, 95%CI: 1.67 - 4.15, P = 0.000). CONCLUSIONS: For small hepatocarcinoma eligible for Milan criterion, percutaneous RFA had a similar overall survival to RES. Percutaneous RFA was the invasive lesser and had a lower postoperative morbidity rate than RES, but RES may had a better prevention of the tumor recurrence than percutaneous RFA. For those patients who don't want to be treated by RES, percutaneous RFA may be a recommendable choice.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the curative effect of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and hepatic resection (RES) for small hepatocarcinoma eligible for Milan criterion using meta analysis method. METHODS: Retrieved clinical trials comparing percutaneous radiofrequency ablation with RES for small hepatocarcinoma published from 1990 to 2010. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate overall survival and disease free survival. A fixed random effect model or random effect model was established to collect the data. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials were included in this analysis. These studies included a total of 539 patients: 252 treated with percutaneous RFA and 287 treated with RES. The differences in overall survival were not statistically significant between RFA and RES (P > 0.05). In the patients treated with RES group, the 2-, 3- and 4-years disease free survival rates were significantly better than that in the patients treated with percutaneous RFA (P < 0.05). The postoperative morbidity rate was significant lower in patients treated with percutaneous RFA (OR: 0.14, 95%CI: 0.09 - 0.22, P = 0.000). But percutaneous RFA had a higher rate of tumor recurrence compared to RES (OR: 2.63, 95%CI: 1.67 - 4.15, P = 0.000). CONCLUSIONS: For small hepatocarcinoma eligible for Milan criterion, percutaneous RFA had a similar overall survival to RES. Percutaneous RFA was the invasive lesser and had a lower postoperative morbidity rate than RES, but RES may had a better prevention of the tumor recurrence than percutaneous RFA. For those patients who don't want to be treated by RES, percutaneous RFA may be a recommendable choice.
Authors: Mohamed E Abdelsalam; Ravi Murthy; Rony Avritscher; Armeen Mahvash; Michael J Wallace; Ahmed O Kaseb; Bruno C Odisio Journal: J Hepatocell Carcinoma Date: 2016-10-11