4.7 Review

A meta-analysis of long-term survival outcomes between surgical resection and radiofrequency ablation in patients with single hepatocellular carcinoma ≤ 2 cm (BCLC very early stage)

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 56, Issue -, Pages 61-67

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.04.048

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma; BLCL very early stage; Liver resection (RES); Radiofrequency ablation (RFA)

Categories

Funding

  1. foundation from 2017 Guangdong Medical Science and Technology Fund [A2017102]
  2. foundation from 2017 Guangdong Natural Science Fund [2017A030313905]
  3. foundation from 2014 People's livelihood science and technology project, Special Project on the Integration of Industry, Education and Research of Guangzhou City [2014Y200509]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: The optimal management choice in consideration of long-term overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) for patients with BLCL very early stage is a matter of debate. Aim: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of liver resection (RES) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for single HCC 2 cm or less. Material and method: The primary sources of the reviewed studies through December 2017, without restriction on the languages or regions, were Pubmed and Embase. The hazard ratio (HR) was used as a summary statistic for long-term outcomes. Results: A total of 5 studies qualified for inclusion in this quantified meta-analysis with a total of 729 HCC patients of BCLC very early stage. Only postoperative 1-year OS was comparable in both RES and RFA groups. As for long-term outcomes of 3-year and 5-year OSs, RES was significantly better than RFA, the HRs were 0.64 (95% CI: 0.41, 1.00; P=0.05) and 0.63 (95% CI: 0.42, 0.95; P=0.03) respectively. In terms of postoperative DFS, reduced tumor recurrence was observed in RES, and all the short-and long-terms outcomes were favored RES. Discussion: RES offers better long-term oncologic outcomes compared with RFA in current clinical evidences.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available