Mid- to long-term outcome of laparoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation for malignant hepatic tumors

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of fully laparoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (LURFA) in malignant hepatic tumors that are difficult to curatively treat with the percutaneous approach or laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2021, 62 patients with malignant hepatic tumors (37 hepatocellular carcinomas [HCCs] and 25 metastatic colorectal cancers [mCRCs]), who were not feasible to be curatively treated by percutaneous radiofrequency ablation or LLR, were enrolled and treated only by LURFA. Patients who underwent concurrent surgical resection were excluded. The cumulative incidence rates of local recurrence (LR) and survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

All 93 tumors with a median diameter of 22.0 mm (IQR, 8.0-50.0) and a median number of 1.5 tumors (IQR, 1.0-6.0) in 62 patients were successfully treated. According to the IWATE criteria for LLR, 33 of 62 patients (53.2%) had tumors in difficult locations (segments I, VII, VIII, and IVa). Over a median follow-up period of 92.4 months (IQR, 60.0-128.0), the 1-, 2-, 3-, 5-, 8-, and 10-year cumulative incidence rates of LR were 6.9%, 13.8%, 17.2%, 17.2%, 20.9%, and 20.9%, respectively. In patients with HCC, 1-, 3-, 5-, and 8-year survival rates were 97.2%, 80.6%, 55.6%, and 40.1%, respectively. In patients with mCRC, 1-, 3-, 5-, and 8-year survival rates were 100.0%, 36.4%, 27.3%, and 16.4%, respectively. Adverse events of grade 3 occurred in only 3 of 62 patients (4.8%).

CONCLUSION

Full LURFA is a safe and effective treatment for malignant hepatic tumors, even in difficult percutaneous ablation or LLR areas.

Outcomes of laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation versus percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Few studies have compared the therapeutic outcomes in patients with HCC who underwent laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) versus percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Therefore, this study compared the recurrence and survival outcomes of the two RFA methods in patients with HCC.

METHODS

Recurrence and overall survival outcomes were evaluated in 307 patients who underwent LRFA (n = 151) or PRFA (n = 156) as a treatment method for de novo HCC. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was performed to reduce the impact of treatment selection bias.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in major baseline characteristics between the LRFA and PRFA groups. However, the proportion of cirrhotic patients was higher in the LRFA group, whereas the LRFA group had more tumors and a more advanced tumor-node-metastasis stage. Moreover, the mean tumor size was significantly larger in the LRFA group than in the PRFA group. In a multivariate analysis, serum albumin level, more than three tumors, and the RFA method were identified as significant predictors of recurrence-free survival. Moreover, for the overall survival of HCC patients, serum albumin levels, days of hospital stay during RFA, and the RFA method were independent predictors. In the IPTW-adjusted analysis, the LRFA group showed significantly higher recurrence-free survival and overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed that compared with PRFA, LRFA was associated with longer recurrence-free survival and favorable overall survival in patients with HCC. Therefore, LRFA should be considered the primary therapy in patients with HCC eligible for RFA.

Laparoscopic resection vs laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas: A single-center analysis

AIM

To compare survival and recurrence after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Between June 1, 2005 and November 30, 2010, 46 patients (62.26 ± 8.55 years old; female/male: 12/34) treated for small HCC were enrolled following strict criteria. Patients with better liver function and larger tumors were referred for LLR (n = 24), while those with poorer liver function and multiple tumors were referred for LRFA (n = 22), and they were then followed for similar durations (44.74 ± 21.3 mo for LLR vs 40.27 ± 30.8 mo for LRFA).

RESULTS

The LLR and LRFA groups were homogeneous with regard to age, sex, etiology of liver cirrhosis, and AFP levels. The overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) probability was 0.354 and 0.260, respectively. A significantly higher OS was observed in the LLR group (LLR: 0.442; LRFA: 0.261; P = 0.048), whereas no statistical difference was found for DFS (LLR: 0.206; LRFA: 0.286; P = 0.205). In the LRFA group was treated a greater number of nodules (LLR: 1.41 ± 0.77; LRFA: 2.72 ± 1.54; P < 0.001). Cox regression analysis found the number of intraoperative HCC nodules as the unique variable statistically significant for OS (hazard ratio: 2.225; P < 0.001). The rank-hazard plot showed a steeper increase of relative hazard for intraoperative nodules > 2.

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary results confirm the superiority of hepatic resection on thermoablation in the treatment of small HCC in selected patients, when both approaches are made laparoscopically. LLR showed better results compared to LRFA in terms of OS. These data need to be confirmed by further studies on a larger number of patients.

A comparison of perioperative outcomes in elderly patients with malignant liver tumors undergoing laparoscopic liver resection versus radiofrequency ablation

BACKGROUND

Liver resection is the treatment option with the best chance for cure in patients with malignant liver tumors. However, there are concerns regarding postoperative recovery in elderly patients, which may lead to a preference of non-resectional therapies over hepatectomy in this patient population. Although laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is associated with a faster recovery compared to open hepatectomy, there are scant data on how elderly patients tolerate LLR. The aim of this study was to analyze the perioperative outcomes of LLR in elderly patients with hepatic malignancies, with a comparison to laparoscopic RFA (LRFA).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospective database for liver tumors identified a total of 82 patients older than 65 years who underwent laparoscopic treatment of their liver tumors in a single tertiary care center between 2000 and 2014. These patients were equally distributed into LLR and LRFA treatment arms.

RESULTS

Mean age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and tumor type (predominantly metastatic colorectal cancer) were similar in both groups. Patients in the LRFA group had more tumors (2.1 ± 1.8 vs. 1.2 ± 0.6, p < 0.01), whereas tumors were larger in the LLR group (3.8 ± 1.6 vs. 2.8 ± 1.1 cm, p < 0.01). Although the operative time (116 vs. 214 min, p < 0.01) and hospital stay (2.1 vs. 3.4 days, p = 0.010) were shorter for the LRFA versus LLR group, respectively, morbidity (4.8 vs. 7.3 %) and mortality (0 vs. 0 %) were similar. Local recurrence was significantly higher in the LRFA versus LLR group (29 vs. 2.4 %, respectively, p = 0.002). However, there was no statistical difference in disease-free and overall survival between two groups (28 vs. 30 and 51 vs. 54 months, p = 0.443 and 0.768, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that LLR was tolerated as well as LRFA in elderly patients with similar comorbidities. We suggest LLR to be considered as an option in selected elderly patients who are deemed poor candidates for open hepatectomy.