4.5 Article

Radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: Long-term experience with expandable needle electrodes

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY
卷 186, 期 5, 页码 S316-S321

出版社

AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.0243

关键词

abdomen; liver disease; oncology; radiofrequency ablation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE. Our objective Was to determine the efficacy of radiofrequency ablation, using expandable electrodes, in the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). SUBJECTS AND METHODS. In a 5-year period (1998-2003),68 HCCs in 59 patients (age range, 47-88 years) were treated percutaneously with radiofrequency ablation using expandable needle electrodes. The mean lesion diameter was 3.1. cm (range, 1-12 cm). Fifty-one of 59 patients were in Child-Pugh class A, and eight were in class B. Follow-up was performed by helical CT at 1, 4, and 6 months and every 6 months after that. The mean follow-up was 24.1 months (range, 6-60 months). Survival and disease-free survival rates were evaluated separately by statistical analysis. Any complications were reported during follow-up. RESULTS. Cumulative survival rates were 94.4%, 65%, and 43.1% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Median survival time was 23.6 months (range, 4-62 months). Maximum tumor diameter was associated with the probability of survival; 73% among patients with lesion diameters of 3 cm or less, 76.5% among patients with lesion diameters of 3-5 cm, and only 40% among patients with lesion diameters of more than 5 cm (p = 0.05, log-rank test; p = 0.07, Tarone-Ware test). In 34 (57.6%) of 59 patients during follow-up, new nodules noncontiguous with the treated nodule developed in the liver (tumor recurrences). Median disease-free survival rates were 32.1%, 28.1%, and 17.5% at, 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. One major complication occurred (hemoperitoneum that required transfusion). CONCLUSION. Radiofrequency ablation with expandable electrodes is safe and effective in the treatment of HCC.

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