Efficacy of microwave ablation versus radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score analysis

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and new-generation microwave ablation (MWA) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: The propensity score matching method was applied to patients with HCC treated with MWA (93 patients) or RFA (156 patients) at a single institution from January 2014 to April 2020. The local tumor progression (LTP), intrahepatic distant recurrence (IDR), and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of the two matched therapies were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method. Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify risk factors for LTP and RFS. The therapeutic effects and complications of the two treatments were also compared. RESULTS: The LTP, IDR, and RFS of MWA and RFA were equivalent (LTP: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.87; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.36- 2.07; P = 0.746, IDR: HR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.61–1.73; P = 0.890, RFS: HR = 1.15; 95% CI 0.69–1.91; P = 0.566). Para-vessel lesions was the only risk factor for LTP, whereas age, previous treatment, Albumin-Bilirubin score, and tumor diameter were risk factors for RFS. On the other hand, the ablation time per nodule (6.79 ± 2.73 and 9.21 ± 4.90 min; P = 0.008) and number of sessions per nodule required to achieve technical success (1.16 ± 0.39 and 1.34 ± 0.57; P = 0.009) were significantly lower in MWA than in RFA. The major complication rate of MWA and RFA was also equivalent. CONCLUSION: MWA and RFA have similar therapeutic effects and safety, although MWA has advantages over RFA regarding efficacy, including shorter ablation time and fewer sessions required.