Effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation versus transarterial chemoembolization for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis

Background Both transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are effective methods for the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC). Thus far, it is unclear which method is more satisfactory in short- and long-term survival benefits. Purpose To compare the overall survival (OS) and complications of TACE and RFA used for the management of RHCC. Material and Methods A literature search was carried out using PubMed, the Cochrane Library and, Embase databases, and Google Scholar, keywords including “RHCC,” “TACEC,” and “RFA” with a cutoff date of 30 April 2021. Used Review Manager software was to calculate short- and long-term OS. The clinical outcomes are major complications and complete response (CR). Results Finally, nine clinical trials met the research standard, including 1326 subjects, of which 518 received RFA and 808 received TACE. The analysis showed that patients who underwent RFA had significantly higher 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS (OR1-year = 1.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.27–2.91, p = .002; OR3-year = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.30–2.08, p <.0001; OR5-year = 3.22, 95% CI = 1.34–7.72, p=.009). Besides, the patients who chose RFA had an obvious higher rate of CR than those receiving TACE (OR = 33.75, 95% CI = 1.73–658.24, p = .002). However, the major complications were consistency between these two groups. Conclusion Our study discovered that RFA had greater CR and incidence in both the short-term and long-term OS than TACE. In addition, obvious difference was not found in major complications in these two methods.