1. Efficacy of microwave ablation versus radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score analysis.
- Author
-
Suwa K, Seki T, Aoi K, Yamashina M, Murata M, Yamashiki N, Nishio A, Shimatani M, and Naganuma M
- Subjects
- Humans, Microwaves therapeutic use, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Propensity Score, Retrospective Studies, Treatment Outcome, Carcinoma, Hepatocellular surgery, Catheter Ablation, Liver Neoplasms surgery, Radiofrequency Ablation
- Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and new-generation microwave ablation (MWA) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)., Methods: The propensity score matching method was applied to patients with HCC treated with MWA (93 patients) or RFA (156 patients) at a single institution from January 2014 to April 2020. The local tumor progression (LTP), intrahepatic distant recurrence (IDR), and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of the two matched therapies were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify risk factors for LTP and RFS. The therapeutic effects and complications of the two treatments were also compared., Results: The LTP, IDR, and RFS of MWA and RFA were equivalent (LTP: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.87; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.36- 2.07; P = 0.746, IDR: HR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.61-1.73; P = 0.890, RFS: HR = 1.15; 95% CI 0.69-1.91; P = 0.566). Para-vessel lesions was the only risk factor for LTP, whereas age, previous treatment, Albumin-Bilirubin score, and tumor diameter were risk factors for RFS. On the other hand, the ablation time per nodule (6.79 ± 2.73 and 9.21 ± 4.90 min; P = 0.008) and number of sessions per nodule required to achieve technical success (1.16 ± 0.39 and 1.34 ± 0.57; P = 0.009) were significantly lower in MWA than in RFA. The major complication rate of MWA and RFA was also equivalent., Conclusion: MWA and RFA have similar therapeutic effects and safety, although MWA has advantages over RFA regarding efficacy, including shorter ablation time and fewer sessions required., (© 2021. The Author(s).)
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF