| Literature DB >> 35159014 |
Giacomo Zanus1, Giovanni Tagliente1, Serena Rossi1, Alessandro Bonis1, Mattia Zambon1, Michele Scopelliti1, Marco Brizzolari1, Ugo Grossi1, Maurizio Romano1, Michele Finotti1,2.
Abstract
This study aimed to analyze the outcomes of HCC patients treated with a novel technique-pulsed microwave ablation (MWA)-in terms of safety, local tumor progression (LTP), intrahepatic recurrence (IHR), and overall survival (OS). A total of 126 pulsed microwave procedures have been performed in our center. We included patients with mono- or multifocal HCC (BCLC 0 to D). The LTP at 12 months was 9.9%, with an IHR rate of 27.8% at one year. Survival was 92.0% at 12 months with 29.4% experiencing post-operative complications (28.6% Clavien-Dindo 1-2, 0.8% Clavien-Dindo 3-4). Stratifying patients by BCLC, we achieved BCLC 0, A, B, C, and D survival rates of 100%, 93.2%, 93.3%, 50%, and 100%, respectively, at one year, which was generally superior to or in line with the expected survival rates among patients who are started on standard treatment. The pulsed MWA technique is safe and effective. The technique can be proposed not only in patients with BCLC A staging but also in the highly selected cases of BCLC B, C, and D, confirming the importance of the concept of stage migration. This procedure, especially if performed with a minimally invasive technique (laparoscopic or percutaneous), is repeatable with a short postoperative hospital stay.Entities:
Keywords: hepatocellular carcinoma; liver microwave ablation; mini-invasive approach
Year: 2022 PMID: 35159014 PMCID: PMC8833939 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14030748
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Population parameters.
| Variables | Results |
|---|---|
| Age, mean ± SD (range); median | 68.2 ± 9.2 (36–88); 69 |
| Sex (M/F), | 88 (77.9)/25 (22.1) |
| Etiology, | |
| Alcohol-related | 22/113 (19.5) |
| Alcohol-related and metabolic | 5/113 (4.4) |
| Viral | 68/113 (60.2) |
| HCV | 43/113 (38.1) |
| HCV + HIV | 2/113 (1.8) |
| HCV + ETOH | 2/113 (1.8) |
| HBV | 17/113 (15.0) |
| HBV + ETOH | 4/113 (3.5) |
| Metabolic | 11/113 (9.7) |
| Other | 7/113 (6.2) |
| BCLC, | |
| 0 | 11 (10) |
| A | 59 (52) |
| B | 33 (29) |
| C | 6 (5) |
| D | 2 (2) |
| NR | 2 (2) |
Disease parameters in our sample.
| MELD, Mean ± SD (Range) | Results |
|---|---|
| Considering procedures | 9.4 ± 3.1 (6–21) |
| Considering patients (MELD score at the first procedure) | 9.4 ± 3.2 (6–21) |
| Child–Pugh, | |
| A5 | 52 (46.0) |
| A6 | 40 (35.4) |
| B7 | 13 (11.5) |
| B8 | 2 (1.8) |
| B9 | 1 (0.9) |
| C10 | 2 (1.8) |
| C11 | 1 (0.9) |
| *NR = not reported/missing data | 2 (1.8) |
| Portal thrombosis, | 10 (8.1) |
| CEA (ng/mL), mean ± SD (range); median | 3.4 ± 4.9 (0.5–49.4); 2.3 |
| CA 19.9 (U/mL), mean ± SD (range); median | 28.7 ± 37.3 (0.6–296); 18 |
| AFP (ng/mL), mean ± SD (range) | 51.0 ± 138.1 (1–851) |
| Ascites, | 33 (26.4) |
| Portal hypertension, | 83 (67.5) |
| *NR = not reported/missing data |
Surgical and technical data.
| Lesions’ size (mm), mean ± SD (range); median | 17.3 ± 11.7 (7–70); 13 |
| Clusters of diameters, | |
| <3 cm | 253/286 (88.5) |
| 3–5 cm | 29/286 (10.1) |
| >5 cm | 4/286 (1.4) |
| Site of lesions, | |
| Posterior segments (s1, s6, s7, s8) | 132 (47.2) |
| Anterior segments and left lobe (s2, s3, s4a, s4b, s5) | 154 (53.8) |
| Multinodular disease, | 90 (78.9) |
| Number of lesions in patients, mean ± SD (range); median | 3.5 ± 2.2 (1–10); 3 |
| Previous surgical treatments ( | 1.9 ± 2.2 (0–11); 3 |
| Previous loco-regional treatments ( | |
| PEI | 0.1 ± 0.7 (0–6) |
| RFA/MWA | 0.5 ± 0.8 (0–4) |
| TACE | 0.7 ± 0.9 (0–4) |
| Previous resection ( | 0.2 ± 0.5 (0–2) |
| Surgical approach, | |
| VLS | 105 (83.3) |
| Laparotomic | 14 (11.1) |
| Percutaneous | 7 (5.6) |
| Time of ablation (min), mean ± SD (range); median | 8.0 ± 7.0 (1–40); 6.0 |
| Probe power (W), mean ± SD (range); median | 81.2 ± 19.7 (40–120); 75 |
| Associated resection, | 24 (18.6) |
| Major | 1 (0.8) |
| Minor | 23 (18.0) |
| Hospital stay (days), mean ± SD (range); median | |
| All | 4.96 (1–26); 4 |
| VLS (105) | 4.84 (1–26); 4 |
| Open (14) | 8.15 (4–20); 7 |
| Percutaneous (7) | 1.0 (1); 1 |
| Hospital stay for patients scored Clavien–Dindo 1, 2, and 3 | |
| 5.09 (1–26); 4 |
Figure 1Survival rates of patients according to BCLC staging.
Local tumor progression (LTP) and intrahepatic recurrence (IHR) of disease.
| 12-Month LTP | |
| 0 | 182 (90.1%) |
| 1 | 20 (9.9%) |
| 12-month LTP according to nodule size (mm) | |
| <30 ( | 15 (8.4%) |
| 30–50 ( | 4 (21.1%) |
| >50 ( | 1 (25%) |
| 12-month LTP according to the BCLC stage | |
| 0 ( | 1 (9.1%) |
| A ( | 14 (16.9%) |
| B ( | 4 (3.9%) |
| C ( | 0 (0.0%) |
| D ( | 1 (50.0%) |
| 12-month IHR | |
| 0 | 70 (72.2%) |
| 1 | 27 (27.8%) |
| 12-month IHR according to nodule size (mm) | |
| <30 ( | 22 (27.8%) |
| 30–50 ( | 4 (25.0%) |
| >50 ( | 1 (50.0%) |
Comparison to other experiences in the literature.
| Author, Year | Procedures | Diameter | Follow-Up (months) | LTP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lu MD et al., 2005 [ | 49 | ≤3 cm | 25.1 | 6.8% |
| Ohmoto K et al., 2009 [ | 49 | ≤2 cm | 12 | 13% |
| Ding J et al., 2013 [ | 113 | ≤3 cm | 18.3 | 7.3% |
| Vogl TJ et al., 2015 [ | 28 | ≤5 cm | 12 | 11.1% |
| Li W et al., 2017 [ | 60 | ≤3 cm | 12 | 14.9% |
| Xu Y et al., 2017 [ | 294 | ≤3 cm | 12 | 10.6% |
| Baker EH et al., 2017 [ | 219 | 1–6 cm | 9.9 | 8.5% |
| Santambrogio et al., 2017 [ | 60 | ≤3 cm | 26.9 | 8.3% |
| Liu W et al., 2018 [ | 126 | ≤3 cm | 36.8 | 11.7% |
| Cillo U et al., 2019 [ | 815 | ≤5 cm | 6 | 23.1% |
| Our experience—2020 | 126 | All | 12 | 9.9% |