Prognostic Significance of Treatment Strategies for the Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinomas After Radical Resection

Meta-Analysis of Repeat Hepatectomy versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Recurrence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary hepatic malignancy and a leading cause of cancer-related death in both the developed and developing world. Recurrent HCC (rHCC) develops in a significant proportion of patients even following curative-intent resection. In the absence of a structured treatment algorithm, a number of treatment options including repeat hepatectomy (RH) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have been utilized in select patients with rHCC. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing RHR versus RFA for rHCC. Four electronic databases were screened until September 2022. A total of 17 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Overall and disease-free survival were comparable among the two groups. Patients undergoing RH were less likely to develop a second recurrence (RR 0.89, 95% C.I. 0.81 to 0.98, p = 0.02). Overall and major morbidity were significantly increased in the RH group (RR 3.01, 95% C.I. 1.98 to 4.56, p < 0.001 and RR 3.65, 95% C.I. 2.07 to 6.43, p < 0.001, respectively), while mortality was similar between RFA and RH. The data demonstrated that RFA is a safe and efficient alternative to RH for selected patients with rHCC. Nevertheless, despite higher morbidity associated with RH, repeat resection remains the preferred treatment option whenever feasible, as it allows for better local disease control.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

The efficacy of repeat hepatic resection (rHR) in the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma compared with radiofrequency or microwave ablation after resection of the primary tumour remains controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the safety and efficacy of these procedures.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were systematically searched to identify related studies published before 10 October 2021. Overall and recurrence-free survival after different treatments were compared based on pooled hazard ratios with a random-effects model.

Results

Two randomized clinical trials and 28 observational studies were included, involving 1961 and 2787 patients who underwent rHR and ablation respectively. Median perioperative mortality in both groups was zero but patients in the rHR group had higher median morbidity rates (17.0 per cent) than those in the ablation group (3.3 per cent). rHR achieved significantly longer recurrence-free survival than ablation (HR 0.79, 95 per cent c.i. 0.70 to 0.89, P < 0.001), while both groups had similar overall survival (HR 0.93, 95 per cent c.i. 0.83 to 1.04, P = 0.18).

Conclusion

rHR and ablation based on radio- or microwaves are associated with similar overall survival in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after resection of the primary tumour.

Liver resection versus radiofrequency ablation for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.