Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Feb 19;22(1):56.
doi: 10.1186/s12957-024-03330-8.

Comparison of liver resection and radiofrequency ablation in long-term survival among patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized trials and high-quality propensity score-matched studies

Lingbo Hu  1   2 , Jiangying Lin  3 , Aidong Wang  1   2 , Xingpeng Shi  1   2 , Yingli Qiao  4   5
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Comparison of liver resection and radiofrequency ablation in long-term survival among patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized trials and high-quality propensity score-matched studies

Lingbo Hu et al. World J Surg Oncol. .

Abstract

Background: Whether radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and liver resection (LR) are comparable treatments for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is controversial. We conducted this study to provide ample clinical evidence for the argument.

Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched (PSM) studies that compared long-term outcomes of both RFA and LR for patients with early-stage HCC. The hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were calculated.

Results: Thirty-six studies consisting of six RCTs and 30 PSM studies were included in this study, and a total of 7384 patients were involved, with 3694 patients being treated with LR and 3690 patients with RFA. Meta-analysis showed that LR provided better OS and DFS than RFA (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.13-1.31; HR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.39-1.74, respectively). A sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were stable. For the subgroup of patients with BCLC 0 stage, RFA and LR resulted in similar OS and DFS. For the subgroup of patients with single tumor sizes less than 3 cm, RFA reached similar OS (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.90-1.58) but worse DFS compared with LR (HR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.11-1.90). For the subgroup of ablation margin larger than 0.5 cm, LR still resulted in better OS than RFA (HR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.09-1.53); while the ablation margin was larger than 1 cm, both RFA and LR resulted in similar OS. The modality of RFA was also a factor that affected results. Subgroup analysis showed that patients receiving ultrasound-guided RFA had worse OS and DFS than LR (HR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.14-1.36; HR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.25-1.66, respectively).

Conclusions: Meta-analysis showed that LR provided better OS and DFS for patients with early-stage HCC. However, RFA and LR had similar effects on long-term survival in patients with BCLC 0 stage HCC. RFA and LR probably had similar effects on OS in patients with solitary HCC less than 3 cm or when the ablation margin was larger than 1 cm which need more studies to confirm. The effects of different modalities of RFA on long-term survival are needed for further assessment.

Keywords: Early stage; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Liver resection; Meta-analysis; Radiofrequency ablation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of study selection
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Forest plot for hazard ratios of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). A forest plot for OS. B Forest plot for DFS
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plot for overall and major complications. A Forest plot for total complication. B Forest plot for major complication
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plot for hospital stay
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Heimbach JK, Kulik LM, Finn RS, Sirlin CB, Abecassis MM, Roberts LR, et al. AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2018;67(1):358–380. doi: 10.1002/hep.29086. - DOI - PubMed
    1. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2018;69(1):182–236. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.019. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Forner A, Reig M, Bruix J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet. 2018;391(10127):1301–1314. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30010-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lee DH, Lee JM, Lee JY, Kim SH, Yoon JH, Kim YJ, et al. Radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma as first-line treatment: long-term results and prognostic factors in 162 patients with cirrhosis. Radiology. 2014;270(3):900–909. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13130940. - DOI - PubMed