4.7 Article

Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization Plus Radiofrequency Ablation Therapy for Early Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma Comparison With Surgical Resection

期刊

CANCER
卷 116, 期 15, 页码 3638-3644

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25142

关键词

hepatocellular carcinoma; liver; radiofrequency ablation; transcatheter arterial chemoembolization

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is becoming a well-known local therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) is expected to enhance the effects of subsequent RFA by reducing arterial blood flow. However, the long-term efficacy of this combined therapy has not been elucidated. In this study, the survival rates of patients who received TACE combined with RFA (TACE + RFA) were compared with those of patients treated surgically. METHODS: The study included consecutive patients who received TACE + RFA or surgical resection as the initial curative treatment for HCC between 2000 and 2005 at Tokai University Hospital. Inclusion criteria were a single HCC <= 50 mm or up to 3 HCCs <= 30 mm, presence of cirrhosis classified as Child-Pugh class A, no vascular invasion, and no extrahepatic metastasis. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients (23 women, 39 men; aged 67.5 +/- 8.4 years [mean +/- standard deviation]) received TACE + RFA, and 55 patients (15 women, 40 men; aged 66.1 +/- 8.4 years) underwent surgical resection. Median follow-up periods were similar (50 months in the TACE + RFA group vs 49 months in the resection group). The probabilities of overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years in the TACE + RFA group (100%, 94.8%, and 64.6%, respectively) were similar (P = .788) to those in the resection group (92.5%, 82.7%, and 76.9%, respectively). Two major RFA-related complications were observed (1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: RFA combined with TACE is an efficient and safe treatment that provides overall survival rates similar to those achieved with surgical resection. Cancer 2010;116;3638-44. (C) 2070 American Cancer Society.

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