Long-term outcomes of thermal ablation vs surgical resection for single small hepatocellular carcinoma.

IF 3.6 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Ying-Ming Gao, Sai-Kang Tang, Zhi-Wen Luo, Wei-Hua Zhi, Xue Yan, Xin Yin, Xin-Yu Bi, Yue Han
{"title":"Long-term outcomes of thermal ablation <i>vs</i> surgical resection for single small hepatocellular carcinoma.","authors":"Ying-Ming Gao, Sai-Kang Tang, Zhi-Wen Luo, Wei-Hua Zhi, Xue Yan, Xin Yin, Xin-Yu Bi, Yue Han","doi":"10.5306/wjco.v16.i11.112212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Thermal ablation (TA), including radiofrequency ablation and microwave ablation, is a commonly used curative treatment for single small hepatocellular carcinoma (sHCC). The relative advantages of TA and surgical resection (SR) in terms of long-term survival remain controversial.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare their long-term efficacy in this patient population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This population-based retrospective cohort study included 257 patients who received a first diagnosis of single sHCC and underwent SR or TA from January 2012 to September 2017. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average follow-up duration was 11.4 years. The 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year OS rates were 95.8%, 86.0%, 82.5%, and 74.2% in the SR group <i>vs</i> 97.4%, 85.8%, 78.6%, and 65.6% in the TA group, with the median OS not yet reached. The 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year RFS rates were 79.8%, 59.6%, 46.2%, and 24.7% in the SR group <i>vs</i> 83.9%, 61.5%, 47.9%, and 41.2% in the TA group, with median RFS values of 3.95 and 4.63 years, respectively. No significant differences in OS or RFS were observed overall (OS: <i>P</i> = 0.244; RFS: <i>P</i> = 0.180), but in patients ≤ 60 years, TA led to a higher RFS than SR (<i>P</i> = 0.021). Multivariate analysis identified age, tumor differentiation grade, and Child-Pugh classification as independent risk factors for OS, whereas age and differentiation grade were significant risk factors for RFS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients with single sHCC, SR, and TA offered comparable long-term efficacy. However, TA showed superior RFS in patients ≤ 60 years, suggesting that TA may be a reasonable option for younger patients, pending confirmation by prospective studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":23802,"journal":{"name":"World journal of clinical oncology","volume":"16 11","pages":"112212"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12678904/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World journal of clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v16.i11.112212","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Thermal ablation (TA), including radiofrequency ablation and microwave ablation, is a commonly used curative treatment for single small hepatocellular carcinoma (sHCC). The relative advantages of TA and surgical resection (SR) in terms of long-term survival remain controversial.

Aim: To compare their long-term efficacy in this patient population.

Methods: This population-based retrospective cohort study included 257 patients who received a first diagnosis of single sHCC and underwent SR or TA from January 2012 to September 2017. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS).

Results: The average follow-up duration was 11.4 years. The 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year OS rates were 95.8%, 86.0%, 82.5%, and 74.2% in the SR group vs 97.4%, 85.8%, 78.6%, and 65.6% in the TA group, with the median OS not yet reached. The 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year RFS rates were 79.8%, 59.6%, 46.2%, and 24.7% in the SR group vs 83.9%, 61.5%, 47.9%, and 41.2% in the TA group, with median RFS values of 3.95 and 4.63 years, respectively. No significant differences in OS or RFS were observed overall (OS: P = 0.244; RFS: P = 0.180), but in patients ≤ 60 years, TA led to a higher RFS than SR (P = 0.021). Multivariate analysis identified age, tumor differentiation grade, and Child-Pugh classification as independent risk factors for OS, whereas age and differentiation grade were significant risk factors for RFS.

Conclusion: In patients with single sHCC, SR, and TA offered comparable long-term efficacy. However, TA showed superior RFS in patients ≤ 60 years, suggesting that TA may be a reasonable option for younger patients, pending confirmation by prospective studies.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

单发小肝癌热消融与手术切除的远期疗效比较。
背景:热消融(TA),包括射频消融和微波消融,是单纯性小肝癌(sHCC)常用的根治性治疗方法。在长期生存方面,TA和手术切除(SR)的相对优势仍然存在争议。目的:比较两种药物在该患者群体中的长期疗效。方法:这项基于人群的回顾性队列研究纳入了257例首次诊断为单一sHCC并于2012年1月至2017年9月接受了SR或TA治疗的患者。主要终点是总生存期(OS)和无复发生存期(RFS)。结果:平均随访时间11.4年。SR组1、3、5、10年OS率分别为95.8%、86.0%、82.5%、74.2%,TA组为97.4%、85.8%、78.6%、65.6%,中位OS尚未达到。SR组1年、3年、5年和10年RFS分别为79.8%、59.6%、46.2%和24.7%,而TA组为83.9%、61.5%、47.9%和41.2%,中位RFS值分别为3.95和4.63年。总体OS和RFS无显著差异(OS: P = 0.244; RFS: P = 0.180),但在≤60岁的患者中,TA导致的RFS高于SR (P = 0.021)。多因素分析发现,年龄、肿瘤分化等级和Child-Pugh分级是OS的独立危险因素,而年龄和分化等级是RFS的重要危险因素。结论:在单纯性sHCC患者中,SR和TA具有相当的长期疗效。然而,TA在≤60岁的患者中显示出更好的RFS,这表明TA可能是年轻患者的合理选择,有待于前瞻性研究的证实。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
585
期刊介绍: The WJCO is a high-quality, peer reviewed, open-access journal. The primary task of WJCO is to rapidly publish high-quality original articles, reviews, editorials, and case reports in the field of oncology. In order to promote productive academic communication, the peer review process for the WJCO is transparent; to this end, all published manuscripts are accompanied by the anonymized reviewers’ comments as well as the authors’ responses. The primary aims of the WJCO are to improve diagnostic, therapeutic and preventive modalities and the skills of clinicians and to guide clinical practice in oncology. Scope: Art of Oncology, Biology of Neoplasia, Breast Cancer, Cancer Prevention and Control, Cancer-Related Complications, Diagnosis in Oncology, Gastrointestinal Cancer, Genetic Testing For Cancer, Gynecologic Cancer, Head and Neck Cancer, Hematologic Malignancy, Lung Cancer, Melanoma, Molecular Oncology, Neurooncology, Palliative and Supportive Care, Pediatric Oncology, Surgical Oncology, Translational Oncology, and Urologic Oncology.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书