Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
We aimed to compare the therapeutic outcomes of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) as first-line therapies in patients with small single perivascular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
Methods
A total of 144 eligible patients with small (≤ 3 cm) single perivascular (proximity to hepatic and portal veins) HCC who underwent RFA (N = 70) or MWA (N = 74) as first-line treatment were included. The overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local tumor progression (LTP) rates between the two ablation modalities were compared. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was used to reduce selection bias. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the type of hepatic vessels.
Results
After a median follow-up time of 38.2 months, there were no significant differences in OS (5-year OS: RFA 77.7% vs. MWA 74.6%; p = 0.600) and DFS (5-year DFS: RFA 24.7% vs. MWA 40.4%; p = 0.570). However, a significantly higher LTP rate was observed in the RFA group than the MWA group (5-year LTP: RFA 24.3% vs. MWA 8.4%; p = 0.030). IPTW-adjusted analyses revealed similar results. The treatment modality (RFA vs. MWA: HR 7.861, 95% CI 1.642–37.635, p = 0.010) was an independent prognostic factor for LTP. We observed a significant interaction effect of ablation modality and type of peritumoral vessel on LTP (p = 0.034). For patients with periportal HCC, the LTP rate was significantly higher in the RFA group than in the MWA group (p = 0.045). However, this difference was not observed in patients with perivenous HCC (p = 0.116).
Conclusions
In patients with a small single periportal HCC, MWA exhibited better tumor control than RFA.
Key Points
• Microwave ablation exhibited better local tumor control than radiofrequency ablation for small single periportal hepatocellular carcinoma.
• There was a significant interaction between the treatment effect of ablation modality and type of peritumoral vessel on local tumor progression.
• The type of peritumoral vessel is vital in choosing ablation modalities for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Funder
National Scientific Foundation Committee of China
Key TechnoloNational Key R&D Program of Chinagy Research and Development Program of Shandong
State Key Project on Infectious Disease of China
5010 Project of Clinical Research in Sun Yat-sen University
Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging,General Medicine
Reference29 articles.
1. Heimbach JK, Kulik LM, Finn RS et al (2018) AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 67:358–380
2. European Association for the Study of the Live (2018) EASL clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 69:182–236
3. Liang P, Yu J, Yu XL et al (2012) Percutaneous cooled-tip microwave ablation under ultrasound guidance for primary liver cancer: a multicentre analysis of 1363 treatment-naive lesions in 1007 patients in China. Gut 61:1100–1101
4. Du S, Yang JZ, Chen J, Zhou WG, Sun YY (2020) Comparisons of recurrence-free survival and overall survival between microwave versus radiofrequency ablation treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma: a multiple centers retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching. PLoS One 15:e0227242
5. Xu Z, Xie H, Zhou L, Chen X, Zheng S (2019) The combination strategy of transarterial chemoembolization and radiofrequency ablation or microwave ablation against hepatocellular carcinoma. Anal Cell Pathol (Amst) 2019:8619096
Cited by
35 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献