Background/Aim: While percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is considered the standard ablative modality for the treatment of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA) is being increasingly used in recent years. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare percutaneous MWA versus percutaneous RFA in BCLC-A HCC across randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Patients and Methods: Eligible studies included RCTs assessing MWA versus RFA in BCLC-A HCC. Outcomes of interest included: complete ablation (CA) rate, local recurrence (LR) rate, 1-year overall survival (OS) rate, 3-year OS rate and major complications rate. Results: We retrieved all the relevant RCTs through PubMed/Medline, Cochrane library and EMBASE; five eligible studies involving a total of 794 patients (MWA: 409; RFA: 385) and 1008 nodules of HCC (MWA: 519; RFA: 489) were included in our analysis. No significant differences were found between MWA and RFA regarding CA, LR, 3-year OS and major complications rate. Regarding 1-year OS, a higher rate was observed in the MWA group. Conclusion: MWA and RFA are effective and safe techniques in early stage, BCLC-A, HCCMWA resulted in better 1-year OS, although this benefit was not confirmed in the 3-year analysis.
Ricci, A.D., Rizzo, A., Bonucci, C., Tavolari, S., Palloni, A., Frega, G., et al. (2020). The (Eternal) Debate on Microwave Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation in BCLC-A Hepatocellular Carcinoma. IN VIVO, 34(6), 3421-3429 [10.21873/invivo.12181].
The (Eternal) Debate on Microwave Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation in BCLC-A Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Ricci A. D.;Bonucci C.;Tavolari S.;Palloni A.;Frega G.;Mollica V.;Tober N.;Felicani C.;Brandi G.
2020
Abstract
Background/Aim: While percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is considered the standard ablative modality for the treatment of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA) is being increasingly used in recent years. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare percutaneous MWA versus percutaneous RFA in BCLC-A HCC across randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Patients and Methods: Eligible studies included RCTs assessing MWA versus RFA in BCLC-A HCC. Outcomes of interest included: complete ablation (CA) rate, local recurrence (LR) rate, 1-year overall survival (OS) rate, 3-year OS rate and major complications rate. Results: We retrieved all the relevant RCTs through PubMed/Medline, Cochrane library and EMBASE; five eligible studies involving a total of 794 patients (MWA: 409; RFA: 385) and 1008 nodules of HCC (MWA: 519; RFA: 489) were included in our analysis. No significant differences were found between MWA and RFA regarding CA, LR, 3-year OS and major complications rate. Regarding 1-year OS, a higher rate was observed in the MWA group. Conclusion: MWA and RFA are effective and safe techniques in early stage, BCLC-A, HCCMWA resulted in better 1-year OS, although this benefit was not confirmed in the 3-year analysis.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.