Surgical Resection plus Radiofrequency Ablation versus Radical Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Surgical Resection plus Intraoperative Radiofrequency Ablation versus Chemoembolization for the Treatment of Intermediate-Stage (BCLC B) Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Preserved Liver Function: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Simple Summary

Surgical resection plus intraoperative radiofrequency ablation showed better survival outcomes than transarterial chemoembolization in selected patients with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma and Child–Pugh class A liver function. These findings suggest that surgical resection plus intraoperative radiofrequency ablation may provide an opportunity for curative treatment to selected patients deemed eligible only for palliative treatment.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of surgical resection (SR) plus intraoperative radiofrequency ablation (IORFA) with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with intermediate-stage HCC and Child–Pugh class A liver function. Treatment-naïve patients who received SR plus IORFA (n = 104) or TACE (n = 513) were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were subjected to a maximum 1:3 propensity score matching (PSM), yielding 95 patients who underwent SR plus IORFA and 252 who underwent TACE. Evaluation of the entire study population showed that progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly better in the SR plus IORFA than in the TACE group. After PSM, the median PFS (18.4 vs. 15.3 months) and OS (88.6 vs. 56.2 months) were significantly longer, and OS rate significantly higher (HR: 0.65, p = 0.026), in the SR plus IORFA group than in the TACE group. Stratified Cox regression analysis and doubly robust estimation revealed that treatment type was significantly associated with both OS and PFS. Rates of major complications were similar in the SR plus IORFA and TACE groups. In conclusion, SR plus IORFA showed better survival outcomes than TACE. SR plus IORFA may provide curative treatment to patients with intermediate-stage HCC with ≤4 tumors and Child–Pugh class A.

Photodynamic and Photothermal Therapy of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver tumor. It is ranked the sixth most common neoplasm and the third most common cause of cancer mortality. At present, the most common treatment for HCC is surgery, but the 5-year recurrence rates are still high. Patients with early stage HCC with few nodules can be treated with resection or radiofrequency ablation (RFA); while for multinodular HCC, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) has been the first-line treatment. In recent years, based on medical engineering cooperation, nanotechnology has been increasingly applied to the treatment of cancer. Photodynamic therapy and photothermal therapy are effective for cancer. This paper summarizes the latest progress of photodynamic therapy and photothermal therapy for HCC, with the aim of providing new ideas for the treatment of HCC.

Radiofrequency ablation versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the effects of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the results have remained inconsistent. Hence, a meta-analysis and a systematic review of these treatment modalities are necessary to evaluate their efficacy and safety for HCC treatment.

Methods

From the inception of this meta-analysis and review until August 31, 2019, we searched Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and China Biomedical Literature Database for RCTs involving LH and RFA treatments of patients with HCC. The studies were screened and the data from these articles were extracted independently by two authors. Summary odd ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each outcome with a fixed- or random-effect model. The outcomes for effectiveness evaluations included duration of surgery, estimated bleeding volume, incidence of blood transfusion during surgery, duration of hospital stay, and the outcome for safety included the incidence of cancer recurrence.

Results

Seven RCTs with a total of 615 patients were identified, 312 and 303 of which underwent RFA and LH treatments, respectively. The duration of surgery (MD = −99.04; 95% CI: −131.26–−66.82), estimated bleeding volume (MD = −241.97; 95% CI: −386.93–−97.02), incidence of blood transfusion during surgery (OR = 0.08; 95% CI: 0.02–0.37), and duration of hospital stay (MD = −3.4; 95% CI: −5.22–−1.57) in RFA treatment were significantly lower than those of LH treatment. However, the incidence of cancer recurrence was significantly higher for RFA treatment compared with LH treatment (OR = 2.68; 95% CI: 1.72–4.18).

Conclusions

LH treatment is preferred over RFA treatment with a better radical effect, but RFA treatment is more beneficial with smaller trauma, development of less complications, and shorter operating time when compared with HCC treatment.