Liver Resection Versus Local Ablation Therapies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Within the Milan Criteria A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective: To compare the oncologic outcomes of liver resection (LR) and local ablation therapies for HCC. Summary of Background Data: Although several studies have compared LR and local ablation therapies, the optimal treatment of choice for HCC within the Milan criteria remains controversial. Methods: We systemically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized control trials (RCTs) and matched nonrandomized trials (NRTs) that compared LR and local ablation therapies for HCC within the Milan criteria. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were recurrence free survival (RFS) and recurrence pattern. Results: A total of 7 RCTs and 18 matched NRTs, involving 2865 patients in the LR group and 2764 patients in the local ablation therapy group [RFA, MWA, RFA plus trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE)], were included. Although there was no significant difference in OS between LR and RFA, LR showed a significantly better 5-year RFS than RFA in the analysis of RCTs (hazards ratio: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.92; P = 0.006). The RFA group showed a significantly higher local recurrence than the LR group in both analyses of RCTs and NRTs. Additionally, the LR group showed better OS and RFS than the MWA or RFA plus TACE groups. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed that LR was superior to RFA in terms of RFS and incidence of local recurrence. Moreover, LR showed better oncologic outcomes than MWA or RFA plus TACE.

Automated summary

This study found that liver resection (LR) is more effective than local ablation therapies (such as RFA, MWA, and RFA plus TACE) in treating HCC within the Milan criteria. Specifically, LR has better 5-year recurrence-free survival and lower local recurrence rates compared to local ablation therapies.