Single hepatocellular carcinoma ranging from 3 to 5cm: radiofrequency ablation or resection?

Abstract

Background. The optimal therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is transplantation. For all those patients not eligible for transplantation (or on the waiting list) among the treatments of choice used more frequently in recent years are resection (RES) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). RFA is less efficacious for HCC ranging over 3cm. The aim of this study was to compare RFA to RES in a restricted cohort of patients with a single naive HCC ranging from 3 to 5cm in size and without end-stage liver disease. Patients and methods. A total of 102 patients who had never been treated before were enrolled. Those patients whose HCC position would have required too much parenchymal loss at RES (central or close to main vascular structures) were treated with RFA (n=60), and the others underwent RES (n=42). The two groups were similar for HCC size and liver disease status. The outcome was considered in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) calculated by the Kaplan–Meier method. Differences among groups were validated by log-rank test. Results. The RES group seemed to present a better long-term OS (91%, 57%, and 43% vs 96%, 53%, and 32% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively) and DFS (74%, 35%, and 14% vs 68%, 18%, and 0%, respectively) but there was no statistical significance. Age, gender, virus etiology, HCC size and α-fetoprotein levels did not correlate with survival. Patients with recurrence within the first 12 months after treatment showed a worse long-term survival (p=0.011). Patients in Child-Pugh class B had poor prognoses compared with those in class A (p=0.047). Conclusion. Even if RES seemed to promise better long-term results, in the medium term this difference had no statistical significance. Survival in this series was more closely related to the stage of the underlying liver disease than to treatment (RES/RFA).