4.7 Article

Local recurrence after laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation of liver tumors: An analysis of 1032 tumors

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 15, 期 10, 页码 2757-2764

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-008-0043-7

关键词

laparoscopic; thermal ablation; hepatic tumors; local recurrence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The best measure of the technical success of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is local recurrence (LR). The aim of this prospective study is to identify factors that predict LR. Methods: Three hundred thirty-five patients with 1032 unresectable liver tumors underwent laparoscopic RFA between November 1999 and August 2005. All lesions were assessed prospectively regarding tumor type, size, liver segment, blood vessel proximity, and central or peripheral location in the operating room and size of ablation zone at 1-week computed tomographic (CT) scans. Lesions that recurred in follow-up CT scans were identified prospectively. LR was categorized as contiguous or adjacent. Univariate Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models were used for statistical analysis. Results: LR was identified 21.7% of tumors on CT scans with a mean follow-up of 17 months (median, 12 months; range, 3-68 months). This was contiguous in 70% and adjacent in 30%. LR rate per tumor was highest for colorectal metastasis (34%), followed by noncolorectal, nonneuroendocrine metastasis (22%), hepatocellular carcinoma (18%), and neuroendocrine metastasis (6%). By univariate analysis, tumor type and size, ablation margin, liver segmental location, blood vessel proximity, and type of ablation (first time vs. repeat) were found to affect LR. The Cox proportional hazard model identified tumor type, tumor size, ablation margin, and blood vessel proximity to be independent predictors of LR. Conclusion: LR after RFA is predicted by certain tumor characteristics and technical factors. This information can be used intraoperatively to identify those tumors at a higher risk for failure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据