4.5 Article

Radiofrequency ablation for recurrent intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after curative resection

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 80, Issue 3, Pages E221-E225

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.09.019

Keywords

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; Hepatectomy; Radiofrequency ablation; CT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has shown efficacy in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma, but has not been well documented in patients with recurrent intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). We therefore evaluated the long-term survival and safety of percutaneous RFA for patients with recurrent ICC after curative resection. Materials and methods: A total of 20 patients with 29 recurrent ICCs underwent ultrasound-guided percutaneous RFA. All patients had undergone curative resection of the primary ICC. Tumor size ranged from 0.7 cm to 4.4 cm in maximum dimension (mean, 1.9 cm; median, 1.5 cm). Results: The technical effectiveness rate of RFA was 97% (28/29) of recurrent ICCs. Mean local tumor progression-free survival was 39.8 months, and the cumulative local tumor progression-free 6 month and 1, 2, and 4 year survival rates were 93%, 74%, 74%, and 74%, respectively. Median overall survival after RFA was 27.4 months and the cumulative overall 6 month and 1, 2, and 4 year survival rates were 95%, 70%, 60%, and 21%, respectively. There were two major complications (one liver abscess and one biliary stricture, 7% per treatment) during the follow-up, but no procedure-related deaths. Conclusion: RFA is safe and provides successful local tumor control in patients with recurrent ICC after curative resection. RFA for recurrent ICC resulted in a median overall survival rate of 27.4 months after RFA in the present series. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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