Cargando…

Treatment optimization for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: Repeat hepatic resection versus radiofrequency ablation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The optimal treatment strategy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare the outcomes of repeat hepatic resection (RHR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for recurrent HCC. METHOD: From December 2004 to December 2015, 138 patien...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lu, Liang‐He, Mei, Jie, Kan, Anna, Ling, Yi‐Hong, Li, Shao‐Hua, Wei, Wei, Chen, Min‐Shan, Zhang, Yong‐Fa, Guo, Rong‐Ping
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7196061/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32108433
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2951
_version_ 1783528648409612288
author Lu, Liang‐He
Mei, Jie
Kan, Anna
Ling, Yi‐Hong
Li, Shao‐Hua
Wei, Wei
Chen, Min‐Shan
Zhang, Yong‐Fa
Guo, Rong‐Ping
author_facet Lu, Liang‐He
Mei, Jie
Kan, Anna
Ling, Yi‐Hong
Li, Shao‐Hua
Wei, Wei
Chen, Min‐Shan
Zhang, Yong‐Fa
Guo, Rong‐Ping
author_sort Lu, Liang‐He
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The optimal treatment strategy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare the outcomes of repeat hepatic resection (RHR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for recurrent HCC. METHOD: From December 2004 to December 2015, 138 patients who underwent RHR and 194 patients who underwent RFA were enrolled. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to establish 1:1 RHR‐RFA group matching. Clinical outcomes were compared before and after matching. RESULTS: Before matching, the 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year postrecurrence survival (PRS) rates were 91.8%, 82.0%, and 72.9% for the RHR group (n = 138) and 94.4%, 75.4%, and 61.7% for the RFA group (n = 194), respectively (P = .380). After matching, the PRS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 90.5%, 81.5%, and 71.8% for the RHR group (n = 120) and 91.0%, 61.0%, and 41.7% for the RFA group (n = 120), respectively (P = .002). In the subgroup analysis, the PRS rates for the RHR group were better than those for the RFA group for patients who relapsed within 2 years (P = .004) or patients with primary tumor burden beyond the Milan criteria (P = .004). Multivariate analysis showed that treatment allocation was identified as an independent prognostic factor for PRS. CONCLUSION: Compared with RFA, RHR provided a survival advantage for recurrent HCC, especially for patients who relapsed within 2 years and those with primary tumor burden beyond the Milan criteria.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7196061
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71960612020-05-04 Treatment optimization for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: Repeat hepatic resection versus radiofrequency ablation Lu, Liang‐He Mei, Jie Kan, Anna Ling, Yi‐Hong Li, Shao‐Hua Wei, Wei Chen, Min‐Shan Zhang, Yong‐Fa Guo, Rong‐Ping Cancer Med Clinical Cancer Research BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The optimal treatment strategy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare the outcomes of repeat hepatic resection (RHR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for recurrent HCC. METHOD: From December 2004 to December 2015, 138 patients who underwent RHR and 194 patients who underwent RFA were enrolled. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to establish 1:1 RHR‐RFA group matching. Clinical outcomes were compared before and after matching. RESULTS: Before matching, the 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year postrecurrence survival (PRS) rates were 91.8%, 82.0%, and 72.9% for the RHR group (n = 138) and 94.4%, 75.4%, and 61.7% for the RFA group (n = 194), respectively (P = .380). After matching, the PRS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 90.5%, 81.5%, and 71.8% for the RHR group (n = 120) and 91.0%, 61.0%, and 41.7% for the RFA group (n = 120), respectively (P = .002). In the subgroup analysis, the PRS rates for the RHR group were better than those for the RFA group for patients who relapsed within 2 years (P = .004) or patients with primary tumor burden beyond the Milan criteria (P = .004). Multivariate analysis showed that treatment allocation was identified as an independent prognostic factor for PRS. CONCLUSION: Compared with RFA, RHR provided a survival advantage for recurrent HCC, especially for patients who relapsed within 2 years and those with primary tumor burden beyond the Milan criteria. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-02-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7196061/ /pubmed/32108433 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2951 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Cancer Research
Lu, Liang‐He
Mei, Jie
Kan, Anna
Ling, Yi‐Hong
Li, Shao‐Hua
Wei, Wei
Chen, Min‐Shan
Zhang, Yong‐Fa
Guo, Rong‐Ping
Treatment optimization for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: Repeat hepatic resection versus radiofrequency ablation
title Treatment optimization for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: Repeat hepatic resection versus radiofrequency ablation
title_full Treatment optimization for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: Repeat hepatic resection versus radiofrequency ablation
title_fullStr Treatment optimization for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: Repeat hepatic resection versus radiofrequency ablation
title_full_unstemmed Treatment optimization for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: Repeat hepatic resection versus radiofrequency ablation
title_short Treatment optimization for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: Repeat hepatic resection versus radiofrequency ablation
title_sort treatment optimization for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: repeat hepatic resection versus radiofrequency ablation
topic Clinical Cancer Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7196061/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32108433
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2951
work_keys_str_mv AT lulianghe treatmentoptimizationforrecurrenthepatocellularcarcinomarepeathepaticresectionversusradiofrequencyablation
AT meijie treatmentoptimizationforrecurrenthepatocellularcarcinomarepeathepaticresectionversusradiofrequencyablation
AT kananna treatmentoptimizationforrecurrenthepatocellularcarcinomarepeathepaticresectionversusradiofrequencyablation
AT lingyihong treatmentoptimizationforrecurrenthepatocellularcarcinomarepeathepaticresectionversusradiofrequencyablation
AT lishaohua treatmentoptimizationforrecurrenthepatocellularcarcinomarepeathepaticresectionversusradiofrequencyablation
AT weiwei treatmentoptimizationforrecurrenthepatocellularcarcinomarepeathepaticresectionversusradiofrequencyablation
AT chenminshan treatmentoptimizationforrecurrenthepatocellularcarcinomarepeathepaticresectionversusradiofrequencyablation
AT zhangyongfa treatmentoptimizationforrecurrenthepatocellularcarcinomarepeathepaticresectionversusradiofrequencyablation
AT guorongping treatmentoptimizationforrecurrenthepatocellularcarcinomarepeathepaticresectionversusradiofrequencyablation