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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |