Clinical effect of re-hepatic resection versus radiofrequency ablation in treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma in Asia: A Meta-analysis
DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2021.05.025
- VernacularTitle:再次肝切除术与射频消融治疗亚洲复发性肝细胞癌患者效果比较的Meta分析
- Author:
Minjun LI
1
;
Zhujian DENG
;
Haotian LIU
;
Yuxian TENG
;
Rongrui HUO
;
Xiumei LIANG
;
Bangde XIANG
;
Lequn LI
;
Jianhong ZHONG
Author Information
1. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Guangxi Liver Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Engineering and Technology Research Center, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Nanning 530021, China
- Publication Type:Research Article
- Keywords:
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular;
Hepatectomy;
Radiofrequency Ablation;
Meta-Analysis as Topic
- From:
Journal of Clinical Hepatology
2021;37(5):1103-1109.
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo investigate the safety and efficacy of re-hepatic resection (rHR) versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC) in Asia through a meta-analysis. MethodsPubMed, CNKI, and Wanfang Data were searched for related studies published up to June 15, 2020. Two reviewers independently searched for the articles and extracted related data, and RevMan 5.4.1 was used to perform the meta-analysis. ResultsA total of 2 randomized controlled trials and 18 retrospective cohort studies met the inclusion criteria and involved 2903 patients with RHCC from Asian countries. The mortality rate in the perioperative period was 2% in the rHR group and 0 in the RFA group, and the incidence rate of perioperative complications was 22.4% in the rHR group and 3.3% in the RFA group. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 92.3%, 66.3%, and 51.1%, respectively, in the rHR group and 91.4%, 69.2%, and 39.9%, respectively, in the RFA group. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 67.9%, 48.3%, and 34.4%, respectively, in the rHR group and 57.5%, 27.9%, and 14.0%, respectively, in the RFA group. The Meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in overall survival rate between the two groups (hazard ratio ［HR］=089, 95% confidence interval ［CI］: 0.77-1.02, P=0.10), while the rHR group had a significantly higher disease-free survival rate than the RFA group (HR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.72-0.87, P＜0.001). ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that rHR may help to achieve a higher disease-free survival rate than RFA in the treatment of RHCC, while rHR and RFA have a similar overall survival rate.
