Objective: The primary objective of this study was to compare between LR and RFA in the management of early HCC. We are trying to provide an update that can be valuable in clinical practice for determining the most suitable first line management option for early HCC.
Patients & Methods: The study included 80 patients with early HCC according to the BCLC staging system. Patients divided into two groups; group A, 40 patients (50%) treated through LR while group B, 40 patients (50%) managed through percutaneous RFA. In this study, we used the alternation method as an allocation process in this study. Procedures in both groups done according to conventional principles. Percutaneous RFA technique done under the guidance of US in complete aseptic conditions. Collected data included Procedure time, intra-operative bleeding, PO complications, pain score, ICU, and the total hospital stay days. Post procedures, Patients monitored every three months throughout the follow-up period.
Results: A total of 80 patients with early HCC underwent treatment with LR (N = 40) and with RFA (N = 40). There is a significant difference between both groups regarding the mean time of the procedure, 145±19.8 minutes versus 40.6±7.8 minutes for LR and RFA respectively. Rates of recurrence significantly (P- value 0.05) between LR and RFA groups; However, the recurrence percentage was slightly higher among patients treated by RFA compared to LR group.
Conclusion: Our prospective comparative study offers evidence that RFA provides a novel treatment for early HCC that shows survival and tumor relapse rates comparable to LR.
Keywords: percutaneous RFA, liver resection, HCC recurrence, hepatocellular carcinoma.
|
