BACKGROUND: It is not known whether percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRFA) could get the same treatment efficacy and fewer complications as partial hepatectomy (PH) in patients with small centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The present study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of PH and PRFA in the treatment of small centrally located HCC. METHODS: From January 2002 until December 2007, 196 patients with small centrally located HCC (≤5 cm) were included. Of these 196 patients, 94 received PRFA and 102 patients were treated with PH. Treatment outcomes, including major complications and survival data, were studied. RESULTS: No treatment-related death occurred in either group. There were no significant differences in survival rates between the two groups. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates for the PRFA and PH groups were 57.9%, 36.4%, 34.0%, and 59.8%, 42.4%, 40.8%, respectively (P = 0.50). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates for the two groups were 94.3%, 74.7%, and 49.8%, and 89.2%, 74.1%, and 63.1%, respectively (P = 0.96). PRFA had a lower rate of major complications than PH (8.5 vs. 19.6%), and the hospital stay was also shorter in the PRFA group than in the PH subgroup (4 vs. 13 days). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the data obtained, we concluded that PRFA might be equal to PH for the treatment of small centrally located HCC. However, PRFA has the benefits of shorter hospital stay as well as a lower rate of complications.
BACKGROUND: It is not known whether percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRFA) could get the same treatment efficacy and fewer complications as partial hepatectomy (PH) in patients with small centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The present study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of PH and PRFA in the treatment of small centrally located HCC. METHODS: From January 2002 until December 2007, 196 patients with small centrally located HCC (≤5 cm) were included. Of these 196 patients, 94 received PRFA and 102 patients were treated with PH. Treatment outcomes, including major complications and survival data, were studied. RESULTS: No treatment-related death occurred in either group. There were no significant differences in survival rates between the two groups. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates for the PRFA and PH groups were 57.9%, 36.4%, 34.0%, and 59.8%, 42.4%, 40.8%, respectively (P = 0.50). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates for the two groups were 94.3%, 74.7%, and 49.8%, and 89.2%, 74.1%, and 63.1%, respectively (P = 0.96). PRFA had a lower rate of major complications than PH (8.5 vs. 19.6%), and the hospital stay was also shorter in the PRFA group than in the PH subgroup (4 vs. 13 days). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the data obtained, we concluded that PRFA might be equal to PH for the treatment of small centrally located HCC. However, PRFA has the benefits of shorter hospital stay as well as a lower rate of complications.
Authors: W J Wiersinga; M C Jansen; I H Straatsburg; P H Davids; J M Klaase; D J Gouma; T M van Gulik Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 6.939