4.5 Article

Local Recurrence after Radiofrequency Ablation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Treatment Choice and Outcome

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
Volume 19, Issue 8, Pages 1466-1475

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-015-2850-z

Keywords

Salvage surgery; Radiofrequency ablation; Transarterial chemoembolization; Local recurrence; Hepatocellular carcinoma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been proven effective for treating small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) nodules. However, post-RFA local recurrence is a major factor limiting prognosis. Up to now, there is no consensus on a standardized treatment strategy for these local recurrences. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of salvage treatments for RFA-related local recurrence. From May 2008 to June 2013, a total of 112 patients with HCC were detected with local recurrence after RFA. Among them, 94 patients received sequential treatments in our hospital, including salvage resection (SR) (n = 24), salvage liver transplantation (n = 2), repeated RFA (n = 62), and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) (n = 6). We evaluated the treatment outcomes of patients by salvage surgery (SS), RFA, and TACE. The median follow-up time was 32 months. After treatment, local recurrence was eradicated in 82 of 94 patients (87.2 %). The complete response (CR) rate in the RFA group was 90.3 % (56/62), while it was 100 % (26/26) in the SS group (P = 0.175) and 0 % (0/6) in the TACE group. When analysis confined to patients with CR, the 1- and 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 57.7 and 20.2 % in the SS group, and 41.7 and 28.6 % in the RFA group, respectively (P = 0.640). The 1- and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 93.3 and 69.1 % in the SS group, and 78.6 and 57.5 % in the RFA group, respectively (P = 0.251). Repeated RFA is the first treatment choice for patients with post-RFA local recurrence. SS should be considered when RFA failed or is inapplicable.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available