4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Repeated radiofrequency ablation for the distant recurrence in the liver in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection achieving long-term survival

期刊

HEPATOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 37, 期 -, 页码 S254-S263

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1872-034X.2007.00193.x

关键词

hepatocellular carcinoma; radiofrequency ablation; distant recurrence; liver transplantation; hepatitis C

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is frequently observed in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and the incidence of HCC recurrence is as high as 20% in these patients even after a complete curative treatment is given for the HCC nodules. We report a 57-year-old female who was referred to our hospital for the treatment of a HCC nodule of 1.8 cm diameter in S5 and having liver cirrhosis of Child-Pugh A classification with HCV infection in April 1999. The HCC nodule showed hypervascularity by computed tomography during hepatic arteriography (CTHA) and was coagulated by microwave under peritoneoscopy. Complete necrosis was confirmed by enhanced-CT scan after microwave coagulation. Thereafter, interferon alfa-2b (3MU, twice weekly) was given but HCV RNA continued to be positive. Thereafter, recurrence of HCC was noted five times in S1, S2, S6; treatment by radio-frequency ablation was given four times; and transarterial chemoembolization was carried out once. Since January 2004, peg-interferon alfa-2a (90 mu m/week) has been administered, and no recurrence has been detected until August 2005. She is currently 63 years old, and quite well. Five-year-survival rate in HCC patients treated by radiofrequency ablation is 62.7% in our hospital, however, the recurrence rate is as high as 26.4% per year in the patients with chronic HCV infection. It is a point of controversy when liver transplantation should be recommended in HCC patients with liver cirrhosis of Child-Pugh A classification having chronic HCV infection because of the high incidence of recurrence.

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

4.5
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