Yao Yang1,2, Hongli Yu1,2, Xu Tan3, Yajing You1,2, Fangyuan Liu1,2, Tong Zhao1,2, Jianni Qi2,4, Jie Li2,5, Yuemin Feng1,2, Qiang Zhu6,7. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Shandong Provincial Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China. 2. Shandong Provincial Engineering and Technological Research Center for Liver Disease Prevention and Control, Jinan, China. 3. Department of Gynecology, Shandong Provincial Hospital, Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China. 4. Department of Central Laboratory, Shandong Provincial Hospital, Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China. 5. Department of Infectious Disease, Shandong Provincial Hospital, Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China. 6. Department of Gastroenterology, Shandong Provincial Hospital, Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China. 7. Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Liver resection (LR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are commonly used for the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the optimal treatment modality remains unclear. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of LR vs RFA for recurrent HCC. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary outcomes were major complications and hospital stay. RESULTS: Eighteen studies with 1991 patients with recurrent HCC were included. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) for OS demonstrated that LR had significantly better OS than RFA in recurrent HCC (HR, 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.95). Specifically, LR was associated with higher 2-, 3- and 4-year OS rates compared with RFA. The pooled HR for DFS showed no significant difference between LR and RFA during the whole follow-up period (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76-1.07). However, LR was associated with significantly higher 2- to 5-year DFS rates compared to RFA. LR was also associated with more major complications (p < .001) and longer hospital stay (p < .001). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that LR and RFA had similar efficacy in patients with recurrent tumors less than 3 cm or patients presenting three or fewer recurrent nodules. CONCLUSION: LR could provide better long-term survival outcomes than RFA for recurrent HCC patients, while RFA has a higher safety profile. RFA can be a good alternative to LR for patients with small-sized recurrence or patients with a limited number of recurrent nodules. However, as tumor size increases, LR tends to be more efficacious.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Liver resection (LR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are commonly used for the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the optimal treatment modality remains unclear. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of LR vs RFA for recurrent HCC. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary outcomes were major complications and hospital stay. RESULTS: Eighteen studies with 1991 patients with recurrent HCC were included. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) for OS demonstrated that LR had significantly better OS than RFA in recurrent HCC (HR, 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.95). Specifically, LR was associated with higher 2-, 3- and 4-year OS rates compared with RFA. The pooled HR for DFS showed no significant difference between LR and RFA during the whole follow-up period (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76-1.07). However, LR was associated with significantly higher 2- to 5-year DFS rates compared to RFA. LR was also associated with more major complications (p < .001) and longer hospital stay (p < .001). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that LR and RFA had similar efficacy in patients with recurrent tumors less than 3 cm or patients presenting three or fewer recurrent nodules. CONCLUSION: LR could provide better long-term survival outcomes than RFA for recurrent HCC patients, while RFA has a higher safety profile. RFA can be a good alternative to LR for patients with small-sized recurrence or patients with a limited number of recurrent nodules. However, as tumor size increases, LR tends to be more efficacious.