4.6 Article

Radiofrequency ablation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 25, 期 2, 页码 403-407

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2009.06037.x

关键词

elderly; hepatocellular carcinoma; radiofrequency ablation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aim: With the aging of society, the number of elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been increasing in Japan. The Government of Japan defines elderly as being over 65 and has divided the elderly into two stages: the first elderly stage (< 75 years old) and the second elderly stage (>= 75). We investigated the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation therapy (RFA) in patients in the second elderly stage in comparison with other HCC patients, retrospectively. Methods: Two hundred six patients with HCC, who were within the Milan criteria, with low-grade performance status (0 or 1) and a Child-Pugh classification of A or B were enrolled. All were treated with RFA from January 2000 to December 2008 as an initial therapy and were divided into elderly HCC group (e-HCC group; >= 75, n = 63) and non e-HCC group (< 75, n = 143), and their clinical data and survival rates were compared. Results: Age and the level of protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist (PIVKA-II) were higher in the e-HCC group as compared with the non e-HCC group (78.3 +/- 3.2 vs 64.2 +/- 7.5 years, 676.3 +/- 2643.7 vs 142.4 +/- 442.2 mAU/mL: P < 0.01, respectively). There were no significant differences for Child-Pugh class, tumor node metastasis stage, and Japan Integrated Stage score and in survival rates after 3, and 5 years between the groups (e-HCC group: 82.5% and 49.7%, respectively; non e-HCC group: 78.3% and 57.5%, respectively). There were no severe complications in the e-HCC group. Conclusions: Elderly HCC patients, who have good performance status, should be treated in the same manner and with the same strategy as young HCC patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据