4.6 Article

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy as a Salvage Therapy after Incomplete Radiofrequency Ablation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Retrospective Propensity Score Matching Study

Journal

CANCERS
Volume 11, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers11081116

Keywords

stereotactic body radiotherapy; radiofrequency ablation; hepatocellular carcinoma; propensity score matching

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [NSFC81572387, 81602143]
  2. 5010 program of Sun Yat-Sen University [2013009]
  3. Scientific Project of Guangdong Province [2017A020215034]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

(1) Background: To investigate the clinical outcomes between radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for residual hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC). (2) Methods: 139 patients were diagnosed with the RHCC after post-operative checkup, among whom 39 and 33 patients underwent RFA or SBRT as salvage treatments, respectively. We applied the propensity score matching (PSM) to adjust for imbalances in treatment assignment. Local disease progression, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment-related side effects were the study endpoints. (3) Results: Before PSM, the SBRT group demonstrated significantly lower local disease progression rate (6/33 vs. 23/39; p = 0.002), better PFS (the 1- and 3-year PFS were 63.3% and 49.3% vs. 41.5% and 22.3%, respectively, p = 0.036), and comparable OS (the 1- and 3-year OS were 85.4% and 71.1% vs. 97.3% and 57.6%, respectively, p = 0.680). After PSM of 23 matched cases, the SBRT group demonstrated significantly lower local disease progression rate, better PFS and comparable OS. Centrally located tumor predicted the worse OS. No acute grade 3+ toxicity was observed in both groups. (4) Conclusion: SBRT might be the preferred treatment for RHCC, especially for patients with larger tumors or tumors abutting major vessels, rather than repeated RFA.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available