An explorative data-analysis to support the choice between hepatic resection and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Whether to prefer hepatic resection or radiofrequency ablation as first line therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma is a matter of debate.To compare outcomes of resection and ablation, in the treatment of early hepatocellular carcinoma, through a decision-making analysis.Data of 388 cirrhotic patients undergoing resection and of 207 undergoing radiofrequency ablation were reviewed. Two distinct regression models were devised and used to perform sensitivity and probabilistic analyses, to overcome biases of covariate distributions.Actuarial survival curves showed no difference between resection and ablation (P=0.270) despite the fact that ablated patients were older, with worse liver function and smaller, unifocal tumours (P<0.05), suggesting a complex, non-linear relationship between clinical, tumoral variables and treatments. Sensitivity and probabilistic analyses suggested that the superiority of resection over ablation decreased at higher Model for-End stage Liver Disease scores, and that ablation provided better results for smaller tumours and higher Model for-End stage Liver Disease scores. In patients with 2-3 tumours up to 3cm, the two treatments produced opposite comparative results in relation to the Model for-End stage Liver Disease score.The superiority, or the equivalence, of resection and ablation depends on the non-linear relationship existing between treatment, tumour number, size and degree of liver dysfunction.