Laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation of subcapsular hepatocellular carcinomas: risk factors related to a technical failure

Thermal ablation for hepatic tumors in high-risk locations

Thermal ablative techniques such as radiofrequency and microwave ablation are minimally invasive and cost-effective approaches that are currently being adopted as alternatives to surgical resection for primary and metastatic liver malignancies. However, they are considered to be relatively contraindicated for tumors in high-risk locations due to technical difficulties and a perceived increased risk of perioperative complications. Several techniques, including artificial ascites, non-touch multibipolar ablation, and laparoscopically assisted ablation, can be used to improve the outcomes of ablation for high-risk tumors. This review aims to provide a comprehensive summary of the techniques currently used to improve thermal ablation outcomes for high-risk liver tumors.

Treatment Outcomes of Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation for Hepatocellular Carcinomas: Effects of the Electrode Type and Placement Method

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association among the electrode placement method, electrode type, and local tumor progression (LTP) following percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for small hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) and to assess the risk factors for LTP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, we enrolled 211 patients, including 150 males and 61 females, who had undergone ultrasound-guided RFA for a single HCC < 3 cm. Patients were divided into four combination groups of the electrode type and placement method: 1) tumor-puncturing with an internally cooled tip (ICT), 2) tumor-puncturing with an internally cooled wet tip (ICWT), 3) no-touch with ICT, and 4) no-touch with ICWT. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression analyses were performed to evaluate the risk factors for LTP. The major RFA-related complications were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 83, 34, 80, and 14 patients were included in the ICT, ICWT, no-touch with ICT, and no-touch with ICWT groups, respectively. The cumulative LTP rates differed significantly among the four groups. Compared to tumor puncturing with ICT, tumor puncturing with ICWT was associated with a lower LTP risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0-0.88, P = 0.034). However, the cumulative LTP rate did not differ significantly between tumor-puncturing with ICT and no-touch RFA with ICT (aHR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.03-1.62, P = 0.188) or ICWT (aHR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0-2.28, P = 0.294). An insufficient ablative margin was a risk factor for LTP (aHR = 6.13, 95% CI = 1.41-22.49, P = 0.019). The major complication rates were 1.2%, 0%, 2.5%, and 21.4% in the ICT, ICWT, no-touch with ICT, and no-touch with ICWT groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

ICWT was associated with a lower LTP rate compared to ICT when performing tumor-puncturing RFA. An insufficient ablation margin was a risk factor for LTP.

Laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation versus percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for subphrenic hepatocellular carcinoma

PURPOSE

Radiofrequency ablation is a curative treatment option for very early-stage or earlystage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRFA) for subphrenic tumors is technically challenging. Laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) has been used to overcome this disadvantage. This study compared the treatment outcomes between LRFA and PRFA for subphrenic HCC.

METHODS

This retrospective study screened patients who underwent PRFA or LRFA for subphrenic HCC between 2013 and 2018. Therapeutic outcomes, including local tumor progression (LTP), intrahepatic distant recurrence (IDR), extrahepatic metastasis (EM), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS), were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Thirty patients in the PRFA group and 23 patients in the LRFA group were included. LTP was observed in six patients in the PRFA group (20%), but in no patients in the LRFA group. The cumulative LTP rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 3.7%, 23.4%, and 23.4%, respectively, in the PRFA group and 0.0% in the LRFA group (P=0.015). The IDR, EM, and DFS rates were not significantly different between the two groups (P=0.304, P=0.175, and P=0.075, respectively). The OS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 96.6%, 85.7%, and 71.6%, respectively, in the PRFA group and 100%, 95.7%, and 95.7%, respectively, in the LRFA group (P=0.049).

CONCLUSION

LRFA demonstrated better therapeutic outcomes than did PRFA for subphrenic tumors in terms of LTP and OS. Therefore, LRFA can be considered as the first-line treatment option for subphrenic HCC.

Laparoscopic Hepatic Resection Versus Laparoscopic Radiofrequency Ablation for Subcapsular Hepatocellular Carcinomas Smaller Than 3 cm: Analysis of Treatment Outcomes Using Propensity Score Matching

Objective

To compare the therapeutic outcomes of laparoscopic hepatic resection (LHR) and laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) for single subcapsular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Materials and Methods

We screened 244 consecutive patients who had received either LHR or LRFA between January 2014 and December 2016. The feasibility of LRFA in patients who underwent LHR was retrospectively assessed by two interventional radiologists. Finally, 60 LRFA-feasible patients who had received LHR and 29 patients who had received LRFA as the first treatment for a solitary subcapsular HCC between 1 cm and 3 cm were finally included. We compared the therapeutic outcomes, including local tumor progression (LTP), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) between the two groups before and after propensity score (PS) matching. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was also used to evaluate the difference in OS and RFS between the two groups for all 89 patients.

Results

PS matching yielded 23 patients in each group. The cumulative LTP and OS rates were not significantly different between the LHR and LRFA groups after PS matching (p = 0.900 and 0.003, respectively). The 5-year LTP rates were 4.6% and 4.4%, respectively, and OS rates were 100% and 90.7%, respectively. The RFS rate was higher in LHR group without statistical significance (p = 0.070), with 5-year rates of 78.3% and 45.3%, respectively. OS was not significantly different between the LHR (reference) and LRFA groups in multivariable analyses, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 0.12–1.54) (p = 0.818). RFS was higher in LHR (reference) than in LRFA without statistical significance in multivariable analysis, with an HR of 2.01 (0.87–4.66) (p = 0.102).

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in therapeutic outcomes between LHR and LRFA for single subcapsular HCCs measuring 1–3 cm. The difference in RFS should be further evaluated in a larger study.