Resection vs thermal ablation of small hepatocellular carcinoma: What's the first choice?

Nowadays, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is frequently diagnosed at an early stage, opening good perspectives to radical treatment by means of liver transplantation, surgical resection, or percutaneous ablation. Liver transplantation is considered the best option, but the lack of liver donors represents a major limitation. Therefore, surgical resection, offering a 5-year-survival rate of over 50%, is considered the first-choice treatment for patients with early stage HCC, whereas percutaneous ablation is usually reserved to patients who are not candidate to surgery. However, in the recent years some trials showed that percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) can be as effective as surgical resection in terms of overall survival and recurrence-free survival rates in patients with small HCC, and a retrospective comparative study reported 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates and recurrence-free survival rates significantly better in patients with central HCC measuring 2 cm or smaller treated with RFA than in those treated with surgical resection. RFA is less expensive, less invasive, with lower complication rate and shorter hospital stay than surgical resection, and on the basis of the results of these studies it should be considered the first option in the treatment of very early HCC. However, RFA is size-dependent, so at present the need to achieve an adequate safety margin around the tumor limits to about 2 cm the diameter of the nodules that can be ablated with long-term outcomes comparable to or better than surgical resection. The main goal of the next technical developments of the thermal ablation systems should be the achievement of larger ablation areas with a single needle insertion. In this regard, the recent improvements in microwave energy delivery systems seem to open interesting perspectives to percutaneous microwave ablation, which could become the ablation technique of choice in the next future.