| Literature DB >> 26998128 |
Xue Sun1, R U Li2, Botao Zhang3, Yuejie Yang3, Zhifei Cui3.
Abstract
Liver cancer is a malignancy of the digestive system and has a high morbidity and mortality rate. Local intervention has become a viable option in identifying liver treatment. The aim of the present study was to analyze the clinical effects of treating liver cancer in middle and advanced stages using ultrasound-guided percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI) in tumors combined with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). A total of 100 patients with stage III-IV liver cancers were selected to participate in the study. Patients were divided into groups. In group A, treatment was initiated with PEI and after 1-2 weeks RFA was applied while in group B treatment was initiated with RFA and after 1-2 weeks PEI was applied. Patients in group C received PEI and RFA simultaneously. The clinical effects in the 3 groups were compared after 6-month follow ups. The volume of tumor ablation necrosis in group A was significantly greater than that in the groups B and C, while the size was significantly smaller compared to groups B and C after ablation. For group A, the complete ablation rate was significantly higher than that in groups B and C, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). Liver damage indices, including raising levels of glutamic-pyruvic transaminase and total bilirubin, were significantly decreased in group A (P<0.05). The survival rate in group A was also significantly higher than in groups B and C (P<0.05). In conclusion, for patients with liver cancer in middle and advanced stages, the treatment method using PEI followed by RFA was more beneficial in terms of improving the tumor ablation rate, alleviating liver damages and increasing survival rates.Entities:
Keywords: liver cancer of middle and advanced stages; percutaneous ethanol injection; radiofrequency ablation; survival time
Year: 2016 PMID: 26998128 PMCID: PMC4774433 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2016.4180
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncol Lett ISSN: 1792-1074 Impact factor: 2.967
Figure 1.The process of percutaneous ethanol injection.
Figure 2.The process of radiofrequency ablation.
Comparisons among different ablation parameters.
| Groups | Cases | Volume before ablation (cm3) | Volume after ablation | Volume of necrosis ablation | Complete ablation rate (%) | Usage volume of alcohol, ml | Radiofrequency energy (×103 J) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 35 | 15.5±3.3 | 1.5±0.8 | 13.8±4.2 | 30 (85.7) | 8.5±1.3 | 456.7±33.4 |
| B | 33 | 14.7±3.4 | 6.6±1.2 | 10.6±3.7 | 20 (60.6) | 8.2±1.5 | 432.6±45.2 |
| C | 32 | 15.3±3.5 | 7.2±1.5 | 10.5±3.8 | 20 (62.5) | 8.3±1.6 | 423.4±43.3 |
| F (χ2) | 0.632 | 6.926 | 6.524 | 6.360 | 0.423 | 0.938 | |
| P-value | 0.425 | 0.032 | 0.038 | 0.042 | 0.725 | 0.546 |
Group A, PEI was administered first and then RFA; group B, RFA was administered first and then PEI; group C, PEI and RFA were administered simultaneously. PEI, percutaneous ethanol injection; RFA, radiofrequency ablation.
Comparisons among liver function damage indices.
| Groups | Glutamic-pyruvic transaminase level before treatments, U/l | Raising levels[ | Total bilirubin before treatments, µmol/l | Raising levels[ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 78.5±13.6 | 13.6±4.2 | 27.9±5.3 | 6.3±1.2 |
| B | 75.6±14.2 | 18.2±4.7 | 25.5±4.2 | 10.2±2.5 |
| C | 76.7±13.5 | 17.5±4.3 | 23.4±4.6 | 8.9±2.4 |
| F-value | 0.632 | 6.325 | 0.759 | 6.856 |
| P-value | 0.421 | 0.039 | 0.532 | 0.027 |
Before treatment - after treatment.