Yuemin Feng1, Le Wang2, Huanran Lv3, Tongtong Shi4, Chenghui Xu4, Hang Zheng4, Jianni Qi5, Xinya Zhao6, Jie Li7, Yanjing Gao8, Chengyong Qin9, Qiang Zhu10. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, Shandong 250021, China; Shandong Provincial Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250021, China. 2. Department of Geriatrics, Gastroenterology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, Shandong 250021, China; Shandong Provincial Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250021, China. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, Shandong 250021, China. 4. Shandong Provincial Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250021, China. 5. Department of Central Laboratory, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, Shandong 250021, China; Shandong Provincial Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250021, China. 6. Department of Radiology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, Shandong 250021, China; Shandong Provincial Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250021, China. 7. Department of Infectious Disease, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, Shandong 250021, China; Shandong Provincial Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250021, China. 8. Department of Gastroenterology, Qilu Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250021, China. 9. Department of Gastroenterology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, Shandong 250021, China; Shandong Provincial Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250021, China. Electronic address: chengyong_qin@126.com. 10. Department of Gastroenterology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, Shandong 250021, China; Shandong Provincial Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250021, China. Electronic address: zhuqiang@sdu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy and safety of microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) as first-line treatments for perivascular HCC. METHODS: This multicentre study enrolled 170 patients with perivascular HCC who underwent MWA or RFA. The ablation response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and complications between the treatment groups for the total and propensity score-matched (PSM) cohorts were compared. RESULTS: The disease control rates for MWA and RFA were similar in total (94% vs. 91%, p = 0.492) and PSM (93% vs. 93%, p = 1.00) cohorts. The PFS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 71%, 55% and 52% in MWA group and 61%, 33% and 28% in RFA group (p = 0.017). The OS rates were comparable between two groups in total (p = 0.249) and PSM cohorts (p = 0.345). In subgroup analyses, the PFS of patients with periportal HCC (45 vs. 36 months, p = 0.048) and a single HCC nodule (51 vs. 42 months, p = 0.014) were significantly better in MWA group than RFA. Major complications were more frequent in the MWA group than in RFA (27% vs. 7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Compared with RFA, MWA provides better control of tumour progression especially in periportal HCC or single-nodule perivascular HCC patients.
BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy and safety of microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) as first-line treatments for perivascular HCC. METHODS: This multicentre study enrolled 170 patients with perivascular HCC who underwent MWA or RFA. The ablation response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and complications between the treatment groups for the total and propensity score-matched (PSM) cohorts were compared. RESULTS: The disease control rates for MWA and RFA were similar in total (94% vs. 91%, p = 0.492) and PSM (93% vs. 93%, p = 1.00) cohorts. The PFS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 71%, 55% and 52% in MWA group and 61%, 33% and 28% in RFA group (p = 0.017). The OS rates were comparable between two groups in total (p = 0.249) and PSM cohorts (p = 0.345). In subgroup analyses, the PFS of patients with periportal HCC (45 vs. 36 months, p = 0.048) and a single HCC nodule (51 vs. 42 months, p = 0.014) were significantly better in MWA group than RFA. Major complications were more frequent in the MWA group than in RFA (27% vs. 7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Compared with RFA, MWA provides better control of tumour progression especially in periportal HCC or single-nodule perivascular HCC patients.
Authors: Natally Horvat; Ana I de Oliveira; Brunna Clemente de Oliveira; Jose A B Araujo-Filho; Maria El Homsi; Ahmed Elsakka; Raazi Bajwa; Guilherme L P Martins; Khaled M Elsayes; Marcos R Menezes Journal: Radiographics Date: 2022-10 Impact factor: 6.312