Repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy versus radiofrequency ablation for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicenter, propensity score matching analysis.

IF 5.7 4区 生物学 Q1 BIOLOGY
Bioscience trends Pub Date : 2025-01-14 Epub Date: 2024-12-05 DOI:10.5582/bst.2024.01224
Zihui Ma, Xiaolu Lin, Jinglei Zhang, Xingchao Song, Maolin Yan, Lei Guo, Jie Xue, Chongde Lu, Jie Shi, Shuqun Cheng, Weixing Guo
{"title":"Repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy versus radiofrequency ablation for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicenter, propensity score matching analysis.","authors":"Zihui Ma, Xiaolu Lin, Jinglei Zhang, Xingchao Song, Maolin Yan, Lei Guo, Jie Xue, Chongde Lu, Jie Shi, Shuqun Cheng, Weixing Guo","doi":"10.5582/bst.2024.01224","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed at analyzing and comparing the clinical efficacy and prognosis of repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy (r-LH) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in treating recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC). Clinicopathological data of RHCC patients who underwent r-LH or RFA as treatment from three medical centers were retrospectively reviewed. Baseline characteristics at the recurrence time after initial hepatectomy and clinical outcomes following treatment of RHCC were compared between the two groups. Using the Kaplan-Meier method, survival curves for the two groups of patients were generated, and the log-rank test was used to compare survival differences. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to match patients of the r-LH and RFA groups in a 1:1 ratio. A total of 272 patients were enrolled, including 133 patients who underwent r-LH and 139 patients who received RFA. After PSM, 76 patients were matched in each study group. Compared with the r-LH group, the RFA group had shorter hospitalization and fewer postoperative complications. However, the r-LH group had significantly better overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) than the RFA group before and after PSM. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that RHCC patients with solitary tumor or those with tumors located near the diaphragm, visceral surface or vessels, had survival benefits from r-LH. When tumor diameter ≤ 5 cm, r-LH appears to be an effective priority to RFA with a significantly higher OS and DFS rate in treating RHCC patients, especially for patients with solitary tumor and those with tumors located near the diaphragm, visceral surface or vessels.</p>","PeriodicalId":8957,"journal":{"name":"Bioscience trends","volume":" ","pages":"563-575"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioscience trends","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5582/bst.2024.01224","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed at analyzing and comparing the clinical efficacy and prognosis of repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy (r-LH) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in treating recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC). Clinicopathological data of RHCC patients who underwent r-LH or RFA as treatment from three medical centers were retrospectively reviewed. Baseline characteristics at the recurrence time after initial hepatectomy and clinical outcomes following treatment of RHCC were compared between the two groups. Using the Kaplan-Meier method, survival curves for the two groups of patients were generated, and the log-rank test was used to compare survival differences. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to match patients of the r-LH and RFA groups in a 1:1 ratio. A total of 272 patients were enrolled, including 133 patients who underwent r-LH and 139 patients who received RFA. After PSM, 76 patients were matched in each study group. Compared with the r-LH group, the RFA group had shorter hospitalization and fewer postoperative complications. However, the r-LH group had significantly better overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) than the RFA group before and after PSM. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that RHCC patients with solitary tumor or those with tumors located near the diaphragm, visceral surface or vessels, had survival benefits from r-LH. When tumor diameter ≤ 5 cm, r-LH appears to be an effective priority to RFA with a significantly higher OS and DFS rate in treating RHCC patients, especially for patients with solitary tumor and those with tumors located near the diaphragm, visceral surface or vessels.

重复腹腔镜肝切除术与射频消融治疗复发性肝细胞癌:一项多中心,倾向评分匹配分析。
本研究旨在分析比较重复腹腔镜肝切除术(r-LH)与射频消融术(RFA)治疗复发性肝细胞癌(RHCC)的临床疗效和预后。回顾性分析了三个医疗中心接受r-LH或RFA治疗的RHCC患者的临床病理资料。比较两组患者初始肝切除术后复发时的基线特征和治疗后的临床结果。采用Kaplan-Meier法生成两组患者的生存曲线,采用log-rank检验比较生存差异。采用倾向评分匹配(PSM)分析,将r-LH组和RFA组患者按1:1的比例进行匹配。共纳入272例患者,其中133例接受r-LH治疗,139例接受RFA治疗。PSM后,每组76例患者配对。与r-LH组相比,RFA组住院时间短,术后并发症少。然而,在PSM前后,r-LH组的总生存期(OS)和无病生存期(DFS)明显优于RFA组。亚组分析表明,单发肿瘤或肿瘤位于膈膜、内脏表面或血管附近的RHCC患者可从r-LH中获得生存益处。当肿瘤直径≤5 cm时,相对于RFA, r-LH是治疗RHCC患者的有效优先选择,其OS和DFS率显著高于RFA,特别是对于单发肿瘤以及肿瘤位于膈、内脏表面或血管附近的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.60
自引率
1.80%
发文量
47
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BioScience Trends (Print ISSN 1881-7815, Online ISSN 1881-7823) is an international peer-reviewed journal. BioScience Trends devotes to publishing the latest and most exciting advances in scientific research. Articles cover fields of life science such as biochemistry, molecular biology, clinical research, public health, medical care system, and social science in order to encourage cooperation and exchange among scientists and clinical researchers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信