Objectives <p>At present, there are no established clinical guidelines for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of peribiliary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of RFA for peribiliary vs. non-peribiliary HCC.</p> Methods <p>This retrospective study included 282 patients with peribiliary HCC (<i>n</i> = 109) or non-peribiliary HCC (<i>n</i> = 173) who received RFA between February 2013 and May 2021. Local tumor progression (LTP), overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and complications were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).</p> Results <p>Before PSM, there were no significant differences in 5-year LTP rates (26.3% vs. 23.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.602), OS rates (56.6% vs. 68.0%, <i>p</i> = 0.586), or DFS rates (22.9% vs. 25.7%, <i>p</i> = 0.239) between the peribiliary and non-peribiliary groups. After PSM, there were no significant differences in the 1-, 3-, and 5-year LTP rates (13.0%, 23.1%, and 26.3% vs. 12.1%, 25.1%, and 28.2%, respectively, <i>p</i> = 0.857), OS rates (97.2%, 73.5%, and 56.6% vs. 95.3%, 79.5%, and 70.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.727), or DFS rates (59.4%, 29.4%, and 22.9% vs. 64.2%, 33.1%, and 23.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.568) between the peribiliary non-peribiliary groups. Peribiliary location was not a significant prognostic factor for LTP (<i>p</i> = 0.622) or OS (<i>p</i> = 0.587). In addition, mild intrahepatic bile duct dilatation was more frequent in the peribiliary group (9.2% vs. 2.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.045).</p> Conclusion <p>Long-term outcomes of RFA were similar for peribiliary and non-peribiliary HCC. RFA is a viable alternative for treatment of peribiliary HCC.</p> Critical relevance statement <p>The local tumor progression (LTP), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) rates after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) were similar for peribiliary and non-peribiliary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).</p> Key Points <p><UnorderedList Mark="Bullet"> <ItemContent> <p>There are currently no clinical guidelines for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of peribiliary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).</p> </ItemContent> <ItemContent> <p>Local tumor progression, overall survival, and disease-free survival after RFA were similar for peribiliary and non-peribiliary HCC.</p> </ItemContent> <ItemContent> <p>RFA is a viable alternative for the treatment of peribiliary HCC.</p> </ItemContent> </UnorderedList></p> Graphical Abstract <p></p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Radiofrequency ablation for peribiliary hepatocellular carcinoma: propensity score matching analysis

  • Jin Cui,
  • Xinzi Sui,
  • Kaiwen Liu,
  • Min Huang,
  • Yuanwen Zheng,
  • Xinya Zhao,
  • Gongzheng Wang,
  • Ximing Wang

摘要

Objectives

At present, there are no established clinical guidelines for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of peribiliary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of RFA for peribiliary vs. non-peribiliary HCC.

Methods

This retrospective study included 282 patients with peribiliary HCC (n = 109) or non-peribiliary HCC (n = 173) who received RFA between February 2013 and May 2021. Local tumor progression (LTP), overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and complications were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).

Results

Before PSM, there were no significant differences in 5-year LTP rates (26.3% vs. 23.6%, p = 0.602), OS rates (56.6% vs. 68.0%, p = 0.586), or DFS rates (22.9% vs. 25.7%, p = 0.239) between the peribiliary and non-peribiliary groups. After PSM, there were no significant differences in the 1-, 3-, and 5-year LTP rates (13.0%, 23.1%, and 26.3% vs. 12.1%, 25.1%, and 28.2%, respectively, p = 0.857), OS rates (97.2%, 73.5%, and 56.6% vs. 95.3%, 79.5%, and 70.6%, p = 0.727), or DFS rates (59.4%, 29.4%, and 22.9% vs. 64.2%, 33.1%, and 23.8%, p = 0.568) between the peribiliary non-peribiliary groups. Peribiliary location was not a significant prognostic factor for LTP (p = 0.622) or OS (p = 0.587). In addition, mild intrahepatic bile duct dilatation was more frequent in the peribiliary group (9.2% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.045).

Conclusion

Long-term outcomes of RFA were similar for peribiliary and non-peribiliary HCC. RFA is a viable alternative for treatment of peribiliary HCC.

Critical relevance statement

The local tumor progression (LTP), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) rates after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) were similar for peribiliary and non-peribiliary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Key Points

There are currently no clinical guidelines for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of peribiliary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Local tumor progression, overall survival, and disease-free survival after RFA were similar for peribiliary and non-peribiliary HCC.

RFA is a viable alternative for the treatment of peribiliary HCC.

Graphical Abstract