European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2022
Surgical resection versus radiofrequency ablation for early recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shi Tongtong, Xu Chenghui, Feng Yuemin, Wei Yingnan, Lv Huanran, Zhu Qiang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Surgical resection (SR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are reasonable treatment options for early recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC), but it is still uncertain which treatment is better. The purpose of this study was to compare the therapeutic effects of SR and RFA on patients with early rHCC.
METHODS: This study enrolled 168 patients with early rHCC who underwent SR or RFA. The progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and complications between the treatment groups for the total and propensity score-matched (PSM) cohorts were compared.
RESULTS: Before PSM, the 1-, 3-, 5-year OS (94.8%, 63.0%, 36.1% vs. 93.8%, 58.5%, 35.4%, P = 0.580) and PFS (50.7%, 22.7%, 12.0% vs. 68.8%, 30.3%, 15.9%, P = 0.224) were similar in RFA group and the SR group. After PSM, the 1-, 3-, 5-year OS (95.5%, 71.1%, 53.3% vs. 95.5%, 58.0%, 42.1%, P = 0.285) and PFS (50%, 36.4%, 27.3% vs. 68.2%, 25.6%, 12.8%, P = 0.999) were similar in the RFA group and the SR group. For patients with early recurrent tumors ≤3 cm, RFA and SR could achieve similar curative effects. However, SR was superior to RFA in terms PFS for patients with early recurrent tumors >3 cm, but the OS was similar. For all patients, RFA had significantly fewer complications and shorter hospitalization time compared with SR.
CONCLUSION: SR achieves better tumor control compared with RFA for patients with early rHCC (>3 cm) after SR. RFA had significantly fewer complications and shorter hospitalization time compared with SR for all patients.
METHODS: This study enrolled 168 patients with early rHCC who underwent SR or RFA. The progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and complications between the treatment groups for the total and propensity score-matched (PSM) cohorts were compared.
RESULTS: Before PSM, the 1-, 3-, 5-year OS (94.8%, 63.0%, 36.1% vs. 93.8%, 58.5%, 35.4%, P = 0.580) and PFS (50.7%, 22.7%, 12.0% vs. 68.8%, 30.3%, 15.9%, P = 0.224) were similar in RFA group and the SR group. After PSM, the 1-, 3-, 5-year OS (95.5%, 71.1%, 53.3% vs. 95.5%, 58.0%, 42.1%, P = 0.285) and PFS (50%, 36.4%, 27.3% vs. 68.2%, 25.6%, 12.8%, P = 0.999) were similar in the RFA group and the SR group. For patients with early recurrent tumors ≤3 cm, RFA and SR could achieve similar curative effects. However, SR was superior to RFA in terms PFS for patients with early recurrent tumors >3 cm, but the OS was similar. For all patients, RFA had significantly fewer complications and shorter hospitalization time compared with SR.
CONCLUSION: SR achieves better tumor control compared with RFA for patients with early rHCC (>3 cm) after SR. RFA had significantly fewer complications and shorter hospitalization time compared with SR for all patients.