Open Access

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

  • Gang Xu1,
  • Fu-zhen Qi1,
  • Jian-huai Zhang1,
  • Guo-feng Cheng1,
  • Yong Cai1 and
  • Yi Miao2Email author
Contributed equally
World Journal of Surgical Oncology201210:163

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

Received: 9 April 2012

Accepted: 15 July 2012

Published: 16 August 2012

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.

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinomameta-analysisradiofrequency ablationsurgery

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 [13]. 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 [47]. Theoretically, the best treatment is liver transplantation [813]. 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, 1921, 2432] 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

Reference

Date

Design

Jadad score

Treatment

Number of patients

Sex (M/F)

Mean age (years)

Tumor number (single/multiple)

Mean tumor size (cm)

Nishikawa

2011

NRCT

1

SR

69

50/19

67.4 ± 9.7

69/0

2.68 ± 0.49

    

RFA

162

95/67

68.4 ± 8.7

162/0

1.99 ± 0.62

Tashiro

2011

NRCT

1

SR

199

137/62

65.7 ± 9.0

132/67

2.1 ± 0.63

    

RFA

87

53/34

66.3 ± 8.2

67/20

1.8 ± 0.52

HUNG

2011

NRCT

1

SR

229

184/45

60.07 ± 12.56

181/48

2.88 ± 1.06

    

RFA

190

121/69

67.42 ± 11.45

152/38

2.37 ± 0.92

Nanashima

2010

NRCT

1

SR

144

112/32

63.6 ± 8.8

128/16

NA

    

RFA

56

36/20

67.7 ± 8.5

51/5

NA

Huang

2010

RCT

4

SR

115

85/30

55.91 ± 12.68

89/26

NA

    

RFA

115

79/36

56.57 ± 14.30

84/31

NA

Ueno

2009

NRCT

1

SR

123

82/41

67 (28 to 85)

110/13

2.7 ± 0.1

    

RFA

155

100/55

66 (40 to 79)

101/54

2.0 ± 0.1

Guglielmi

2008

NRCT

1

SR

91

73/18

NA

69/22

NA

    

RFA

109

88/21

NA

65/44

NA

Hiraoka

2008

NRCT

1

SR

59

44/15

62.4 ± 10.6

NA

22.7 ± 5.5

    

RFA

105

76/29

69.4 ± 9.1

NA

19.8 ± 5.2

Abu-Hilal

2008

NRCT

3

SR

34

26/8

67

NA

3.8 (1.3 to 5)

    

RFA

34

27/7

65

NA

3 (2 to 5)

Takahashi

2007

NRCT

1

SR

53

39/14

66 (41 to 80)

41/12

2.5 (1 to 5)

    

RFA

171

120/51

69 (44 to 84)

124/47

2.1 (0.7 to 4.8)

Chen

2006

RCT

4

SR

90

75/15

49.4 ± 10.9

NA

NA

    

RFA

71

56/15

51.9 ± 11.2

NA

NA

Hong

2005

NRCT

1

SR

93

69/24

49.2 ± 9.9

NA

2.5 ± 0.8

    

RFA

55

41/14

59.1 ± 9.6

NA

2.4 ± 0.6

Vivarell

2004

NRCT

2

SR

79

57/22

65.2 ± 8.2

66/13

NA

    

RFA

79

67/12

67.8 ± 8.7

46/33

NA

NA: Not available; NRCT: non-randomized controlled trial; RCT: randomized controlled trial; RFA: radiofrequency ablation; SR: surgical resection.

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, 1921, 2427, 2932], with certain heterogeneity), three years(13 trials [16, 1921, 2432], without heterogeneity) and five years(10 trials [16, 2432], without heterogeneity) and that the SR group was favored (see Table 2).
Table 2

Main results of the pooled data in the meta-analysis

Variables

Number of references with data

OR (95% CI)

Q test (P value)

I2(%)

Z test (P value)

Begg’s test (P value)

Egger’s test (P value)

Overall survival rates

1 year

12 [16, 1921, 2427, 2932]

0.60(0.42, 0.86)

0.301

14.6

0.005

0.54

0.40

3 years

13 [16, 1921, 2432]

0.49(0.36, 0.65)

0.036

45.8

0.000

0.2

0.15

5 years

10 [16, 2432]

0.60(0.43, 0.84)

0.003

63.7

0.003

0.37

0.57

Recurrence rates

1 year

13 [16, 1921, 2432]

1.48(1.05, 2.08)

0.001

63.4

0.025

1.00

0.61

3 years

13 [16, 1921, 2432]

1.76(1.49, 2.08)

0.000

69.9

0.000

0.20

0.15

5 years

10 [16, 2432]

1.68(1.21, 2.34)

0.02

54.4

0.002

0.86

0.92

Local recurrence

4 [16, 20, 24, 30]

0.34(0.09, 1.28)

0.02

68.9

0.112

NA

NA

Complications

7 [16, 19, 24, 25, 27, 30, 32]

6.25(3.12, 12.52)

0.042

54

0.000

1

0.982

NA,not available.Q test and I2 were used to evaluate the heterogeneity of the studies; Z test was used to value the combined effect; Begg’s and Egger’s tests were used to assess the publication bias.

Recurrence rates

Our results, as shown in Table 2, indicated that recurrence rates at one year(13 trials [16, 1921, 2432], without heterogeneity), three years(13 trials [16, 1921, 2432], without heterogeneity) and five years(10 trials [16, 2432], 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, 2729] 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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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 [3840]. 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.

Notes

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.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of General Surgery, Huai’an First People’s Hospital, Nanjing Medical University
(2)
Department of General Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Nanjing Medical University

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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle 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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Yang JD, Roberts LR: Hepatocellular carcinoma: aglobal view. Nat Rev GastroenterolHepatol. 2010, 7: 448-458.View ArticleGoogle 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.Google Scholar
  5. Llovet JM, Burroughs A, Bruix J: Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet. 2003, 362: 1907-1917. 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14964-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Llovet JM, Bruix J: Novel advancements in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma in 2008. J Hepatol. 2008, 48 (Suppl 1): S20-S37.View ArticlePubMedGoogle 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.View ArticleGoogle 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-PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle 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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle 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.PubMedGoogle 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.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Bruix J, Sherman M: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology. 2011, 53: 1020-1022. 10.1002/hep.24199.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle 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.View ArticleGoogle 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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle 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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle 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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle 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.PubMedGoogle 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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle 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.View ArticleGoogle 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.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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle 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.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Blum HE, Spangenberg HC: Hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Arch Iran Med. 2007, 10: 361-371.PubMedGoogle 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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle 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 CentralPubMedGoogle 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Bangard C: Radiofrequency of the liver - an update. RoFo. 2011, 183: 704-713. 10.1055/s-0029-1246082.View ArticlePubMedGoogle 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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Xu et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

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

Advertisement