Skip to main content
Download PDF

Meta-analysis of surgical resection and radiofrequency ablation for early hepatocellular carcinoma

World Journal of Surgical Oncology volume 10, Article number: 163 (2012) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

There is no definite agreement on the better therapy (radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus surgical resection (SR)) for early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) eligible for surgical treatments. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the evidence using meta-analytical techniques.

Methods

A literature search was undertaken until December 2011 to identify comparative studies evaluating survival rates, recurrence rates, and complications. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated with either the fixed or random effect model.

Results

Thirteen articles, comprising two randomized controlled trials(RCTs), were included in the review, with a total of 2,535 patients (1,233 treated with SR and 1,302 with RFA). The overall survival rates were significantly higher in patients treated with SR than RFA after1, 3, and 5 years (respectively: OR, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.86); OR, 0.49 (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.65); OR, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.84)). In the SR group, the 1, 3, and 5 years recurrence rates were significantly lower than the RFA group (respectively: OR, 1.48 (95% CI, 1.05 to 2.08); OR, 1.76 (95% CI, 1.49 to 2.08); OR, 1.68 (95% CI, 1.21 to 2.34)). However, local recurrence between two groups did not exhibit significant difference. For HCC ≤ 3 cm in diameter, SR was better than RFA at the 1, 3, and 5 years overall survival rates (respectively: OR, 0.34 (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.89); OR, 0.56 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.84); OR, 0.44 (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.62)). This meta-analysis indicated that the complication of SR was higher than RFA (OR, 6.25 (95%CI, 3.12 to 12.52); P = 0.000).

Conclusion

Although local recurrence between two groups did not exhibit significant difference, SR demonstrated significantly improved survival benefits and lower complications for patients with early HCC, especially for HCC ≤ 3 cm in diameter. These findings should be interpreted carefully, owing to the lower level of evidence.

Review

Background

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the seventh most common malignant tumor and the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, with an estimated 500,000 deaths per year [1–3]. In past decades, developments of medical devices and interventional techniques have resulted in substantial opportunities for HCC early diagnosis and therapy.

Current options for the treatment of the early HCC conforming to the Milan criteria (single HCC ≤ 5 cm or up to three nodules ≤ 3 cm), that is stage I, consist of liver transplantation, surgical resection, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE), and percutaneous tumor ablation [4–7]. Theoretically, the best treatment is liver transplantation [8–13]. However, the limited availability of suitable living donors, as well as an increased waiting period, has raised the demand for treatment strategies of early HCC, such as SR and local ablation therapies. Comparison of different local ablative methods has shown that RFA is the most effective in terms of both morbidity and the elimination of tumors locally [14, 15].

Some disputes, however, are reported about RFA and SR. Huang et al.[16], Molinari et al.[17], and Takayama et al.[18] reported that SR had more advantages (survival and recurrence rates) regardless of tumor size (larger or smaller than 3 cm; even smaller than 2 cm). However,Chen et al.[19], Hong et al.[20], Vivarelli et al.[21], and Montorsi et al. [22] concluded that RFA was as effective as SR in the treatment of solitary and small HCC. Additionally, Livraghi et al. [23] and Nashikawa et al. [24] considered RFA the first-line treatment for small resectable HCCs.

Whether RFA or SR is the better treatment for early HCC has long been debated. The aim of this review was to examine survival and recurrence rates after RFA and SR for HCC over the past decade.

Materials and methods

Literature search

Electronic searches were accomplished of the MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register (CENTRAL) and EMBASE databases until December 2011. The following MeSH search headings, all in English, were used: surgical resection, hepatic resection or hepatectomy; radiofrequency, radio-frequency or catheter ablation; and liver cancer or hepatocellular carcinoma.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Two reviewers (Gang Xu and Fuzhen Qi) independently extracted the following parameters from each study: (1) first author and year of the publication; (2) patients characteristics, study design, and following-up; (3) clinical outcomes. Discrepancies between the two reviewers were resolved by discussion. The quality of all selected articles was ranked in accordance with Jadad score.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria for this study were as follows:(1) compare the initial therapeutic effects of RFA with or without TACE and SR for the treatment of early HCC, despite the etiology of liver disease, differences in viral hepatitis, or cirrhotic status; (2) report at least one of the outcomes mentioned below; (3) clearly document indications for RFA and HR; (4) If two or more studies were reported by the same authors in the same institution, either the study of higher quality or the most recent publication was included in the analysis. The primary endpoints were overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years. The secondary endpoints were disease-free survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years.

Criteria for exclusion: case reports, letters, abstracts, editorials, expert opinions, studies lacking control groups and reviews without original data were excluded. The following studies were also excluded: (i) those dealing with liver metastases, recurrence after hepatectomy, or unresectable HCC; (ii) those with no clearly reported outcomes of interest; (iii) those treating patients coupling with cholangiocellular carcinomas.

Subgroup analysis

Subgroup analyses were intended to explore important clinical differences among trials that might be expected to alter the magnitude of treatment effect. A subgroup analysis was performed in this meta-analysis to consider HCC with single nodules of diameter ≤3 cm.

Statistical analysis

We expressed results for dichotomous outcomes as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and continuous outcome as weighted mean difference (WMD) or standard mean difference (SMD). Heterogeneity was explored by χ2 and I2. If the result of the heterogeneity test was P > 0.1 and I2 < 50%, ORs were pooled using the fixed-effect model(Mantel-Haenszel), otherwise, the random-effect model (DerSimonian and Laird) was used. The significance of the pooled ORs was determined by Z-test. P < 0.05 was considered significant.

Publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots, in which the standard error of log(OR) of each study was plotted against its log(OR). An asymmetric plot indicates a possible publication bias. The symmetry of the funnel plot was further evaluated by Begg’s and Egger’s test. Statistical analysis was undertaken using the Stata software (version11: StataCorp, Texas, USA).

Results

Study selection and characteristics

After initial screening, 49 potentially relevant clinical trials of HCC were identified. Of these, 16 trials did not analyze the results of RFA separately from the other therapies, while 14 trials only focused on RFA. These 30 studies were excluded. Six trials were also excluded as no information concerning overall survival after three or five years was provided. A total of 13 studies (2 RCT and 11 NRCTs) [16, 19–21, 24–32] published between 2000 and 2011 were included.

These studies included a total of 2,535 patients: 1,233 treated with RAF and 1,302 with SR. The mean age ranged from 49.2 ± 9.9 to 69.4 ± 9.1 years. The male: female ratio in the pooled data was 2.57: 1. The median or mean tumor size (cm) ranged from 1.8 to 3.8. The median or mean duration of follow-up ranged from 22.7 to 847 months. The quality and characteristics of included studies are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Quality and characteristics of included studies
Full size table

Meta-analysis results

Overall survival rates

The meta-analysis showed that there was a significant difference in overall survival between the two groups at one year(12 trials [16, 19–21, 24–27, 29–32], with certain heterogeneity), three years(13 trials [16, 19–21, 24–32], without heterogeneity) and five years(10 trials [16, 24–32], without heterogeneity) and that the SR group was favored (see Table 2).

Table 2 Main results of the pooled data in the meta-analysis
Full size table

Recurrence rates

Our results, as shown in Table 2, indicated that recurrence rates at one year(13 trials [16, 19–21, 24–32], without heterogeneity), three years(13 trials [16, 19–21, 24–32], without heterogeneity) and five years(10 trials [16, 24–32], without heterogeneity) were significantly higher in the RFA group than in the SR group. However, no differences were found between the two groups (4 trials [16, 20, 24, 30]) with respect to the local intrahepatic recurrence (see Table 2).

Complications

The meta-analysis (7 trials [16, 19, 24, 25, 27, 30, 32] reported these data) showed that there was significant difference between the two groups (OR, 6.25 [95%CI, 3.12 to 12.52]; P = 0.000), without heterogeneity (see Table 2). The RFA group was favored.

Subgroup analysis in HCCs ≤ 3 cm

The meta-analysis (6 trials [16, 21, 24, 27–29] reported these data) showed that the difference was significant and favorable to the SR group at 1, 3 and 5 years (respectively, OR, 0.34 [95%CI, 0.13 to 0.89]; OR, 0.56 [95%CI, 0.37 to 0.84]; OR, 0.44 [95%CI, 0.31 to 0.62] (see Figures 1, 2, 3).

Figure 1
figure 1

Meta-analysis of one-year overall survival rates after SR versus RFA in HCCs ≤ 3 cm. A fixed model was used. Pooled risk ratios are shown with 95% confidence intervals.

Full size image
Figure 2
figure 2

Meta-analysis of three-year overall survival rates after SR versus RFA in HCCs ≤ 3 cm. A fixed model was used. Pooled risk ratios are shown with 95% confidence intervals.

Full size image
Figure 3
figure 3

Meta-analysis of five-year overall survival rates after SR versus RFA in HCCs ≤ 3 cm. A fixed model was used. Pooled risk ratios are shown with 95% confidence intervals.

Full size image

Sensitivity analysis

To compare the difference and evaluate the sensitivity of the meta-analysis, we employed one-way sensitivity analysis to evaluate the stability of the meta-analysis. The statistical significance of the results was not altered when any single study was omitted (data not shown). Therefore, results of the sensitivity analysis suggest that the data in this meta-analysis are relatively robust.

Publication bias

Funnel plots (Figure 4) were created to assess possible publication biases. In addition, Begg’s and Egger’s tests were used to evaluate the symmetry of the plots. As shown in Table 2, the data suggest that the funnel plots were symmetrical, and that publication biases might not have an evident influence on the results of the meta-analyses.

Figure 4
figure 4

Funnel plots on one-year overall survival rates following RFA and SR for the treatment of early HCC.

Full size image

Discussion

There is some dispute whether survival benefits of RFA exist for patients with early HCC compared with SR. This meta-analysis demonstrated that RFA with or without TACE was inferior to SR in terms of overall survival rates and recurrence rates at one, three, and five years, contrary to the opinion of Livraghi [23]. This may be partly explained by advances in surgical and radiological techniques and perioperative care, and by more cautious patient selection [33, 34]. This finding may also be adversely impacted by the delay of surveillance in effective treatment using RFA [35, 36].

A high rate of recurrence after treatment is the main factor affecting overall survival and late death of patients with HCC [37]. Reportedly, the risk factors for tumor recurrence after treatment include tumor location, tumor size, multinodular tumors, and an insufficient safety margin [38–40]. Additionally, recurrences arise because of pre-existing microscopic tumor foci that were undetected by imaging modalities, or because malignant cells disseminated during operation [41, 42]. In this study, recurrence was found to be more frequent after RFA than SR. This may be a result of the safety margin of RFA being narrower than that of SR, as SR usually excises the entire Couinaud segments containing tumors and possible venous tumor thrombus. In addition, high rates of recurrence after RFA may result from insufficient ablation of the primary tumor or the presence of tumor venous invasion in the adjacent liver. As for local intrahepatic recurrence rates, the two groups had no difference. This may be due to the development of techniques of RFA and an accurate evaluation of treatment response via a sufficient safety margin (at least 0.5 cm).

This meta-analysis suggested that the incidence of complications after RFA for HCC was lower than those after the SR group as a result of the microinvasive characterization of RFA. Radiofrequency ablation is a minimally invasive, target-selective technique, which has been applied in clinical studies in the 1990s [43]: it can induce thermal lesions less than 2.5 to 3.5 cm in diameter, using single expandable-tip electrodes, which are handled percutaneously and guided by imaging modalities [44]. This procedure could be performed under conscious sedation and the hospital stay is then shortened.

The subgroup analysis showed marked differences in the overall survival rates between RFA and SR for HCC ≤ 3 cm after one, three, and five years. Considering the fact that patients with single HCC ≤ 3 cm in diameter were at early stage without micro metastases and vascular invasion, SR can achieve better clinic outcomes. However, a lack of sufficient data on RCTs and an unequal constitution of patients may also affect these findings.

The majority of the data in the present study came from non-RCTs, so the overall level of clinical evidence might be low. However, a firm conclusion about bias is difficult to reach as the asymmetry of the funnel plot is minimal. Therefore our pooled OR might be an overestimate of the true effect.

Conclusion

In conclusion, SR demonstrated significantly improved survival benefits for patients with early HCC, especially for HCC ≤ 3 cm in diameter, although local recurrence between two groups did not exhibit significant difference. However, the findings need to be carefully interpreted, owing to the lower level of evidence. Further RCTs are warranted to clarify the exact value of SR and RFA for early HCC, especially for single nodules ≤ 3 cm in diameter.

Abbreviations

CI:

confidence interval

HCC:

hepatocellular carcinoma

OR:

odds ratio

RCT:

randomized controlled trial

RFA:

radiofrequency ablation

SMD:

standard mean difference

SR:

surgical resection

TACE:

transcatheter arterial chemoembolization

WMD:

weighted mean difference.

References

  1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM: Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010, 127: 2893-2917. 10.1002/ijc.25516.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D: Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011, 61: 69-90. 10.3322/caac.20107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Yang JD, Roberts LR: Hepatocellular carcinoma: aglobal view. Nat Rev GastroenterolHepatol. 2010, 7: 448-458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Benson AB, Abrams TA, Ben-Josef E, Bloomston PM, Botha JF, Clary BM, Covey A, Curley SA, D’Angelica MI, Davila R, Ensminger WD, Gibbs JF, Laheru D, Malafa MP, Marrero J, Meranz SG, Mulvihill SJ, Park JO, Posey JA, Sachdev J, Salem R, Sigurdson ER, Sofocleous C, Vauthey JN, Venook AP, Goff LW, Yen Y, Zhu AX: NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: hepatobiliarycancers. JNatlComprCancNetw. 2009, 7: 350-391.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Llovet JM, Burroughs A, Bruix J: Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet. 2003, 362: 1907-1917. 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14964-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Llovet JM, Bruix J: Novel advancements in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma in 2008. J Hepatol. 2008, 48 (Suppl 1): S20-S37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang YY, Xia HH: Novel therapeutic approaches for hepatocellular carcinoma: fact and fiction. World J of Gastroenterol. 2008, 14: 1641-1642. 10.3748/wjg.14.1641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Merchant N, David CS, Cunningham SC: Early hepatocellular carcinoma: transplantation versus resection: the case for liver resection. Int J Hepatol. 2011, 2011: 142085-

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee KK, Kim DG, Moon IS, Lee MD, Park JH: Liver transplantation versus liver resection for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. JSurgOncol. 2010, 101: 47-53.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sotiropoulos GC, Druhe N, Sgourakis G, Molmenti EP, Beckebaum S, Baba HA, Antoch G, Hilgard P, Radtke A, Saner FH, Nadalin S, Paul A, Malagó M, Broelsch CE, Lang H: Liver transplantation, liver resection, and transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: which is the best oncological approach?. Dig Dis Sci. 2009, 54: 2264-2273. 10.1007/s10620-008-0604-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hasegawa K, Kokudo N, Makuuchi M: Surgical management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver resection and liver transplantation. Saudi Med J. 2007, 28: 1171-1179.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhou J, Wang Z, Qiu SJ, Huang XW, Sun J, Gu W, Fan J: Surgical treatment for early hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of resection and liver transplantation. J Cancer Res ClinOncol. 2010, 136: 1453-1460. 10.1007/s00432-010-0802-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bruix J, Sherman M: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology. 2011, 53: 1020-1022. 10.1002/hep.24199.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Peng ZW, Zhang YJ, Chen MS, Lin XJ, Liang HH, Shi M: Radiofrequency ablation as first-line treatment for small solitary hepatocellular carcinoma: long-term results. Eur J SurgOncol. 2010, 36: 1054-1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tiong L, Maddern GJ: Systematic review and meta-analysis of survival and disease recurrence after radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Surg. 2011, 98: 1210-1224. 10.1002/bjs.7669.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Huang J, Yan L, Cheng Z, Wu H, Du L, Wang J, Xu Y, Zeng Y: A randomized trial comparing radiofrequency ablation and surgical resection for HCC conforming to the Milan criteria. AnnSurg. 2010, 252: 903-912.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Molinari M, Helton S: Hepatic resection versus radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic individuals not candidates for liver transplantation: a Markov model decision analysis. Am J Surg. 2009, 198: 396-406. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.01.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Takayama T, Makuuchi M, Hasegawa K: Single HCC smaller than 2 cm: surgery or ablation?: surgeon’s perspective. JHepatobiliaryPancreatSci. 2010, 17: 422-424.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Chen MS, Li JQ, Zheng Y, Guo RP, Liang HH, Zhang YQ, Lin XJ, Lau WY: A prospective randomized trial comparing percutaneous local ablative therapy and partial hepatectomy for small hepatocellular carcinoma. AnnSurg. 2006, 243: 321-328.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hong SN, Lee SY, Choi MS, Lee JH, Koh KC, Paik SW, Yoo BC, Rhee JC, Choi D, Lim HK, Lee KW, Joh JW: Comparing the outcomes of radiofrequency ablation and surgery in patients with a single small hepatocellular carcinoma and well-preserved hepatic function. JClinGastroenterol. 2005, 39: 247-252.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Vivarelli M, Guglielmi A, Ruzzenente A, Cucchetti A, Bellusci R, Cordiano C, Cavallari A: Surgical resection versus percutaneous radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma on cirrhotic liver. AnnSurg. 2004, 240: 102-107.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Montorsi M, Santambrogio R, Bianchi P, Donadon M, Moroni E, Spinelli A, Costa M: Survival and recurrences after hepatic resection or radiofrequency for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients: a multivariate analysis. JGastrointestSurg. 2005, 9: 62-67.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Livraghi T, Meloni F, Di Stasi M, Rolle E, Solbiati L, Tinelli C, Rossi S: Sustained complete response and complications rates after radiofrequency ablation of very early hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: Is resection still the treatment of choice?. Hepatology. 2008, 47: 82-89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nishikawa H, Inuzuka T, Takeda H, Nakajima J, Matsuda F, Sakamoto A, Henmi S, Hatamaru K, Ishikawa T, Saito S, Nasu A, Kita R, Kimuar T, Arimoto A, Osaki Y: Comparison of percutaneous radiofrequency thermal ablation and surgical resection for small hepatocellular carcinoma. BMCgastroenterol. 2011, 11: 143-

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hiraoka A, Horiike N, Yamashita Y, Koizumi Y, Doi K, Yamamoto Y, Hasebe A, Ichikawa S, Yano M, Miyamoto Y, Ninomiya T, Otomi Y, Kokame M, Iwamura T, Ishimaru Y, Sogabe I, Kashihara K, Nishiura S, Ootani H, Takamura K, Kawasaki H: Efficacy of radiofrequency ablation therapy compared to surgical resection in 164 patients in Japan with single hepatocellular carcinoma smaller than 3 cm, along with report of complications. Hepato-gastroenterology. 2008, 55: 2171-2174.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Takahashi S, Kudo M, Chung H, Inoue T, Nagashima M, Kitai S, Tatsumi C, Minami Y, Ueshima K, Fukunaga T, Haji S: Outcomes of nontransplant potentially curative therapy for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in Child-Pugh stage A cirrhosis is comparable with liver transplantation. Dig Dis. 2007, 25: 303-309. 10.1159/000106909.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Guglielmi A, Ruzzenente A, Valdegamberi A, Pachera S, Campagnaro T, D’Onofrio M, Martone E, Nicoli P, Iacono C: Radiofrequency ablation versus surgical resection for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis. JGastrointestSrug. 2008, 12: 192-198.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nanashima A, Tobinaga S, Masuda J, Miyaaki H, Taura N, Takeshita H, Hidaka S, Sawai T, Nakao K, Nagayasu T: Selecting treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma based on the results of hepatic resection and local ablation therapy. JSurgOncol. 2010, 101: 481-485.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ueno S, Sakoda M, Kubo F, Hiwatashi K, Tateno T, Baba Y, Hasegawa S, Tsubouchi H: Surgical resection versus radiofrequency ablation for small hepatocellular carcinomas within the Milan criteria. JHepatobiliary Pancreatic Surg. 2009, 16: 359-366. 10.1007/s00534-009-0069-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Abu-Hilal M, Primrose JN, Casaril A, McPhail MJ, Pearce NW, Nicoli N: Surgical resection versus radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of small unifocal hepatocellular carcinoma. JGastrointestSurg. 2008, 12: 1521-1526.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Hung HH, Chiou YY, Hsia CY, Su CW, Chou YH, Chiang JH, Kao WY, Huo TI, Huang YH, Su YH, Lin HC, Lee SD, Wu JC: Survival rates are comparable after radiofrequency ablation or surgery in patients with small hepatocellular carcinomas. ClinGastroenterolHepatol. 2011, 9: 79-86.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Tashiro H, Aikata H, Waki K, Amano H, Oshita A, Kobayashi T, Tanimoto Y, Kuroda S, Tazawa H, Chayama K: Treatment strategy for early hepatocellular carcinomas: comparison of radiofrequency ablation with or without transcatheter arterial chemoembolization and surgical resection. JSurgOncol. 2011, 104: 3-9.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kudo M: Radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: updated review in 2010. Oncology. 2010, 78 (Suppl 1): 113-124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rahbari NN, Mehrabi A, Mollberg NM, Muller SA, Koch M, Buchler MW, Weitz J: Hepatocellular carcinoma: current management and perspectives for the future. AnnSurg. 2011, 253: 453-469.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Chen WT, Fernandes ML, Lin CC, Lin SM: Delay in treatment of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma using radiofrequency ablation may impact survival of cirrhotic patients in a surveillance program. JSurgOncol. 2011, 103: 133-139.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wong GL, Wong VW, Tan GM, Ip KI, Lai WK, Li YW, Mak MS, Lai PB, Sung JJ, Chan HL: Surveillance programme for hepatocellular carcinoma improves the survival of patients with chronic viral hepatitis. LiverInt. 2008, 28: 79-87.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Blum HE, Spangenberg HC: Hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Arch Iran Med. 2007, 10: 361-371.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Liu L, Miao R, Yang H, Lu X, Zhao Y, Mao Y, Zhong S, Huang J, Sang X, Zhao H: Prognostic factors after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a single-center experience from China. Am J Surg. 2012, 203: 741-750. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.05.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ko CJ, Chien SY, Chou CT, Chen LS, Chen ML, Chen YL: Factors affecting prognosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma in Taiwanese patients following hepatic resection. Can J Gastroenterol. 2011, 25: 485-491.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Grat M, Holowko W, Grzegorczyk K, Skalski M, Krawczyk M: Long-term results of liver resection in the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. PolPrzeglChir. 2011, 83: 319-324.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ohashi M, Wakai T, Korita PV, Ajioka Y, Shirai Y, Hatakeyama K: Histological evaluation of intracapsular venous invasion for discrimination between portal and hepatic venous invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma. JGastroenterolHepatol. 2010, 25: 143-149.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Park YN: Pathology of hepatocellular carcinoma: recent update. Korean J Gastroenterol. 2005, 45: 227-233.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Bangard C: Radiofrequency of the liver - an update. RoFo. 2011, 183: 704-713. 10.1055/s-0029-1246082.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Rossi S, Ravetta V, Rosa L, Ghittoni G, Viera FT, Garbagnati F, Silini EM, Dionigi P, Calliada F, Quaretti P, Tinelli C: Repeated radiofrequency ablation for management of patients with cirrhosis with small hepatocellular carcinomas: a long-term cohort study. Hepatology. 2011, 53: 136-147. 10.1002/hep.23965.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of General Surgery, Huai’an First People’s Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, 6 Beijing Road West, 223300, Huai’an, Jiangsu Province, People’s Republic of China

      Gang Xu, Fu-zhen Qi, Jian-huai Zhang, Guo-feng Cheng & Yong Cai

    2. Department of General Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, 300 Guangzhou Road, 210029, Nanjing, People’s Republic of China

      Yi Miao

    Authors
    1. Gang Xu
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Fu-zhen Qi
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Jian-huai Zhang
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Guo-feng Cheng
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    5. Yong Cai
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    6. Yi Miao
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Yi Miao.

    Additional information

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

    Authors’ contributions

    XG, QFZ, and MY designed the studyand wrote the manuscript.XG, QFZ, ZJH, CGF, and CY performed data acquisition.MY performed quality control of data.XG, QFZ, and MY performed statistical analysis and interpretation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. XG and QFZ contributed equally to this work.

    Gang Xu, Fu-zhen Qi contributed equally to this work.

    Authors’ original submitted files for images

    Rights and permissions

    Open Access This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Cite this article

    Xu, G., Qi, Fz., Zhang, Jh. et al. Meta-analysis of surgical resection and radiofrequency ablation for early hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Surg Onc 10, 163 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-10-163

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-10-163

    Keywords

    World Journal of Surgical Oncology

    ISSN: 1477-7819

    Contact us