Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T20:35:54.661Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of early stage hepatocellular carcinoma: A health technology assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2010

Xuanqian Xie ,
Nandini Dendukuri  and
Maurice McGregor
Xuanqian Xie
Affiliation:
McGill University Health Centre
Nandini Dendukuri
Affiliation:
McGill University and McGill University Health Centre
Maurice McGregor
Affiliation:
McGill University and McGill University Health Centre
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRFA) and surgical resection (SRS) for the management of early stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Methods: A systematic literature search of articles in English, French, and Chinese was performed using online databases. Only articles with patients classified as Child-Pugh Class A or B, with tumor size <5 cm were included. A meta-analysis was carried out to estimate the survival rate and disease-free survival rate following PRFA or SRS treatments. The cost of each treatment was estimated from the third party perspective. Univariate sensitivity analyses were used to study the relative importance of each component cost.

Results: We identified six studies (one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and five comparative cohort studies) meeting our inclusion criteria. There is good evidence that among Child-Pugh A patients for whom both SRS and PRFA are available options, survival rates following either procedure are comparable, while complications are more frequent and hospitalization longer following SRS. The evidence concerning recurrence rates and disease-free survival is less clear. Whereas the RCT indicates comparable outcomes with either procedure up to 3 years, the results of five cohort studies (with possible selection bias), particularly those with a mix of Child-Pugh A and B patients, favor the surgical option. SRS, costs approximately Canadian $8,275 more per case than PRFA.

Conclusions: Continuing doubts on this issue can only be resolved by a substantial RCT. Meanwhile, for early stage HCC patients classified as Child-Pugh A, who despite a possibly higher recurrence rate, prefer the less invasive PRFA to open surgery with its attendant risks, there is sufficient evidence to justify such a choice. For those classified as Child-Pugh (B) it is possible that overall survival is equally good with PRFA, but the evidence is less certain.

Keywords

Radiofrequency ablationSurgical resectionHepatocellular carcinomaMeta-analysisCost analysis
Type
ASSESSMENTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 390 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Amersi, FF, Elrath-Garza, A, Ahmad, A, et al. Long-term survival after radiofrequency ablation of complex unresectable liver tumors. Arch Surg. 2006;141:581–587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Bouza, AC, Martin, FJ, Magro, PMA, et al. Efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation of malignant liver tumours: A systematic review. Madrid: Agencia de Evaluacion de Tecnologias Sanitarias (AETS); 2004.Google Scholar
3. Buell, JF, Thomas, MT, Rudich, S, et al. Experience with more than 500 minimally invasive hepatic procedures. Ann Surg. 2008;248:475–486.Google Scholar
4. Chen, MS, Li, JQ, Liang, HH, et al. [Comparison of effects of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and surgical resection on small hepatocellular carcinoma]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2005;85:80–83.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Chen, MS, Li, JQ, Zheng, Y, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing percutaneous local ablative therapy and partial hepatectomy for small hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg. 2006;243:321–328.Google Scholar
6. Chen, RF, Xiao, TH, Zhou, QB. [Therapeutic clinical effect of radiofrequency ablation for small hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients: A meta-analysis]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2008;46:1413–1418.Google Scholar
7. Cho, CM, Tak, WY, Kweon, YO, et al. [The comparative results of radiofrequency ablation versus surgical resection for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma]. Korean J Hepatol. 2005;11:59–71.Google ScholarPubMed
8. Cormier, JN, Thomas, KT, Chari, RS, Pinson, CW. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2006;10:761–780.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Garrean, S, Hering, J, Saied, A, Helton, WS, Espat, NJ. Radiofrequency ablation of primary and metastatic liver tumors: A critical review of the literature. Am J Surg. 2008;195:508–520.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Guglielmi, A, Ruzzenente, A, Valdegamberi, A, et al. Radiofrequency ablation versus surgical resection for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12:192–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Hamza, TH, van Houwelingen, HC, Stijnen, T. The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:41–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Hasegawa, K, Makuuchi, M, Takayama, T, et al. Surgical resection vs. percutaneous ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: A preliminary report of the Japanese nationwide survey. J Hepatol. 2008;49:589–594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Hong, SN, Lee, SY, Choi, MS, et al. Comparing the outcomes of radiofrequency ablation and surgery in patients with a single small hepatocellular carcinoma and well-preserved hepatic function. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2005;39:247–252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Khan, MR, Poon, RT, Ng, KK, et al. Comparison of percutaneous and surgical approaches for radiofrequency ablation of small and medium hepatocellular carcinoma. Arch Surg. 2007;142:1136–1143.Google Scholar
15. Kooby, DA, Egnatashvili, V, Graiser, M, et al. Changing management and outcome of hepatocellular carcinoma: Evaluation of 501 patients treated at a single comprehensive center. J Surg Oncol. 2008;98:81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Lau, WY, Lai, EC. The current role of radiofrequency ablation in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review. Ann Surg. 2009;249:20–25.Google Scholar
17. Lencioni, R, Crocetti, L. Radiofrequency ablation of liver cancer. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2007;10:38–46.Google Scholar
18. Lupo, L, Panzera, P, Giannelli, G, Memeo, M, Gentile, A, Memeo, V. Single hepatocellular carcinoma ranging from 3 to 5 cm: Radiofrequency ablation or resection? HPB. (Oxford). 2007;9:429–434.Google Scholar
19. Marlow, N E, et al. Radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of liver tumours: A systematic review. ASERNIP-S Report No: 56. Adelaide, South Australia: ASERNIP-S; 2006.Google Scholar
20. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of colorectal metastases in the liver. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE); 2004.Google Scholar
21. Pugh, RN, Murray-Lyon, IM, Dawson, JL, Pietroni, MC, Williams, R. Transection of the oesophagus for bleeding oesophageal varices. Br J Surg. 1973;60:646–649.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Sutherland, LM, Williams, JA, Padbury, RT, Gotley, DC, Stokes, B, Maddern, GJ. Radiofrequency ablation of liver tumors: A systematic review. Arch Surg. 2006;141:181–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Takahashi, S, Kudo, M, Chung, H, et al. Outcomes of nontransplant potentially curative therapy for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in Child-Pugh stage A cirrhosis is comparable with liver transplantation. Dig Dis. 2007;25:303–309.Google Scholar
24. Zhai, B, Xu, AM, Chen, Y, Li, XY, Liu, S, Wu, MC. [Radiofrequency ablation for larger hepatocellular carcinomas]. Di Er Jun Yi Da Xue Xue Bao. 2007;28:651–655.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Xie et al. supplementary material

Supplementary table

Download Xie et al. supplementary material(File)
File 95.7 KB