4.7 Article

Prognostic factors for survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after percutaneous microwave ablation

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 235, 期 1, 页码 299-307

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2351031944

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To determine the long-term survival and prognostic factors in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with percutaneous microwave ablation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained A database of cases of hepatocellular carcinoma in 288. patients (259 men, 29 women; mean age, 54.8 years +/- 11.4 [standard deviation]; age range, 25-82 years) with 477 histologically proved lesions who underwent percutaneous microwave coagulation therapy between May 1994 and October 2002 was retrospectively analyzed. Prognostic factors for survival were evaluated by means of univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The mean follow-up period after microwave ablation was 31.41 months +/- 20.43 (range, 5-106 months). The 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year cumulative survival rates among all 288 patients were 93%, 82%, 72%, 63%, and 51%, respectively. Ninety-three patients (32%) died. Local recurrence or new tumors occurred in 100 patients (35%). Age (P =.836), sex (P =.073), preablation serum a-fetoprotein level (P =.136), and preablation treatment (P =.256) were not related to prognosis, while tumor number (P =.004), tumor size (P <.001), Child-Pugh classification (P =.003), tumor differentiation (P =.026), and local recurrence or presence of new tumors (P =.004) significantly affected survival at univariate analysis. At multivariate analysis, only tumor size (P <.001), number of nodules (P =.005), and Child-Pugh classification (P =.01) each had a significant effect on survival. CONCLUSION: With use of microwave ablation, there is a high probability of long-term survival of patients with a single lesion of 4.0 cm or less in maximum diameter and Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis.

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

4.7
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