2011
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-010-1372-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Surgical Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Childs A Cirrhotics—a Retrospective Study of 1,061 Cases

Abstract: When treating Childs A cirrhotic patients with solitary HCC larger than 3 cm but less than 5 cm, or with two or three lesions each less than 5 cm, surgical resection provides a better survival than RFA. When treating Childs A cirrhotics with solitary HCC ≤ 3 cm, RFA has a comparable RFS to surgical resection, but RFA is less invasive.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

6
73
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 73 publications
(79 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
(36 reference statements)
6
73
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While liver resection and RFA are still the standard treatments for many HCC patients, the long-term effects of surgical resection vs RFA remain controversial [31][32][33] . Thus, when many patients of HCV-related HCC become able to be treated with IFN-free therapies, this issue may be re-evaluated.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While liver resection and RFA are still the standard treatments for many HCC patients, the long-term effects of surgical resection vs RFA remain controversial [31][32][33] . Thus, when many patients of HCV-related HCC become able to be treated with IFN-free therapies, this issue may be re-evaluated.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When compared with liver resection, RFA generally is associated with lower morbidity in patients with small HCC (Feng et al 2014). However, efficacy of RFA versus surgical resection in the treatment of early HCC remains an ongoing issue (Cho et al 2011;Huang et al 2011;Feng et al 2014). Several randomized controlled studies have shown comparable overall survival of RFA versus surgical resection in patients with small HCC (tumor size less than 4 cm) Feng et al 2012).…”
Section: Locoregional Therapymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the subgroup analysis by Chen et al showed higher diseasefree survival rate in the resection group when tumor size ranged from 3.1 to 5.0 cm (65% at 3 yr vs. 45% in the RFA group) . Recently, a meta-analysis of 22 studies concluded that there were superior survival outcomes from surgical resection of HCCs measuring .3 cm compared with RFA (Cho et al 2011;Huang et al 2011;Feng et al 2014). Given the nonsuperiority of RFA over surgical resection in small HCC, its inferiority in larger tumors, and the reported 12.5% risk of needletrack tumor seeding (Llovet et al 2001), the guidelines only recommend ablation in small tumors that are not amendable to surgical resection or transplantation (Fong and Tanabe 2014).…”
Section: Locoregional Therapymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These patients exceed the Milan criteria for liver transplantation, and their access to transplantation is a balance of maximising their chances of cure and organ availability [15,16]. For thermal ablative techniques, such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA), HCC >5 cm in diameter are usually too bulky, resulting in incomplete ablation and a high risk of local recurrence [17,18]. Even if some authors report smaller series of successful thermal ablation of HCC up to 7 cm in diameter, a diameter of 3-4 cm is usually accepted as the upper size limit for thermal ablation in the liver [19,20].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%