RFA, TACE and secondary hepatectomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a 5-year follow-up study

Abstract

Abstract: Objective To collect and analyze the 5-year follow-up information of patients with recurrent liver cancer treated by radiofrequency ablation (RFA), transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) and secondary hepatectomy. Methods A total of patients with recurrent liver cancer admitted to our hospital from June 2010 to December 2015 were enrolled. According to the therapeutic methods, they were divided into RFA group (64 cases), TACE group (58 cases) and secondary hepatectomy group (70 cases). The therapeutic effects of the 3 groups were compared, and the complications were observed. All patients were followed up for 5 years, and the deadline was December 2020 or death. Results The effective rates of RFA group, TACE group and secondary hepatectomy group were 95.31%, 87.93% and 98.57, respectively. The effective rate of TACE group was significantly lower than that of secondary hepatectomy group (P<0.05). The incidence of complications in RFA group, TACE group and secondary hepatectomy group was 9.38%, 6.90% and 25.71%, respectively. The overall incidence of complications in secondary hepatectomy group was significantly higher than those in RFA and TACE group (P<0.05). After operation of 1, 3 and 5 years, the tumor free survivals rates of TACE group were significantly lower than those of RFA group and secondary hepatectomy group (P<0.05). Five years after operation, the tumor free survivals rates of secondary hepatectomy group were significantly lower than those of RFA group (P<0.05). One and 3 years after operation, there was no significant difference among the 3 groups (P>0.05). Five years after operation, the cumulative survivals rates of RFA group were significantly higher than those of TACE group and secondary hepatectomy group (P<0.05). Conclusion The treatment efficacy and long-term survival rate of patients treated by TACE are worse than those treated by RFA and secondary hepatectomy. Patients with recurrent liver cancer treated by secondary hepatectomy may have higher risk of complications, and patients treated by RFA have better long-term survival.

Key words: Radiofrequency ablation, Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, Secondary hepatectomy, Recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma, Disease free survival rate

HUANG Yi, WANG Jian-dong, JIN Lei, XU Shi. RFA, TACE and secondary hepatectomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a 5-year follow-up study[J]. Chinese Hepatolgy, 2021, 26(11): 1257-1259.

References

[1] 王洪良, 孙煦勇, 董建辉,等. 补救性肝移植和再次肝切除治疗复发肝癌疗效对比的荟萃分析. 中华肝胆外科杂志, 2019, 25:513-517.
[2] 白涛,叶甲舟,陈洁, 等.TACE联合RFA治疗复发性肝癌的生存期分析.肿瘤学杂志,2018,24:779-782.
[3] 黄韬, 黎乐群, 钟鉴宏,等. 术后复发性肝癌和原发性肝癌射频消融的临床疗效比较. 中华普通外科杂志, 2019, 34:936-939.
[4] 中华医学会外科学分会肝脏学组. 肝细胞肝癌外科治疗方法的选择. 中华肝脏病杂志, 2009,32:411-412.
[5] Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R et al. Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med, 1996,33: 693-699.
[6] 广东省抗癌协会肝癌专业委员会,中山大学肿瘤防治中心肝胆科.肝癌多学科联合治疗策略与方法--广东专家共识(2).中国实用外科杂志, 2014:735-738.
[7] Bandar MH, Kim NK. Current status and future perspectives on treatment of liver metastasis in colorectal cancer (Review). Oncol Rep, 2017,37:2553-2564.
[8] 陈姚, 陈义发, 刀辰冉,等. 肝细胞癌根治性切除术后复发患者不同局部治疗方法疗效比较. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2018, 7:58-63.
[9] 惠彬, 程立超, 王蒙,等. TACE联合碘125粒子与联合射频消融治疗复发性肝癌临床观察. 潍坊医学院学报, 2017,39:77-80.
[10] 邓林, 孙文杰, 高知玲,等. 中晚期原发性肝癌患者TACE术后早期复发危险因素. 中国介入影像与治疗学, 2020, 17:65-69.
[11] 李春丽, 董巧云, 侯丽,等. 二次切除手术与经皮射频消融治疗切除后复发性肝细胞肝癌的临床疗效和预后分析. 中国医学装备, 2019,16:47-51.
[12] 殷燮灵. 复发性肝癌重复肝切除术与射频消融治疗现状. 南通大学学报(医学版), 2019, 39:104-108.
[13] 许贇, 沈强, 王能,等. 肝细胞癌切除术后复发行二次手术切除疗效研究. 中国实用外科杂志, 2016, 36:652-655.
[14] 陈康, 刘新宇, 滕煜宪,等. 再次肝切除与射频消融治疗复发性肝癌疗效对比研究. 中国实用外科杂志, 2019,39:1060-1064.
[15] 张代忠, 刘明忠, 赵宇. 二次切除手术与经皮射频消融治疗切除术后复发性肝细胞肝癌的临床疗效. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2018, 12:385-387.