Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare survival outcomes after hepatic resection (HR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at a Western hepatobiliary centre. METHODS: Demographic details, clinicopathologic tumour characteristics and survival outcomes were compared among non-transplant candidate patients undergoing HR (n= 50) and RFA (n= 60) for early-stage HCC during 2001-2011. RESULTS: Patients who underwent HR had larger tumours, a longer length of stay and a higher rate of postoperative complications. After a median follow-up of 29 months, there were no significant differences between the treatment groups in 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS) [RFA group: 86%, 50%, 35%, respectively; HR group: 88%, 68%, 47%, respectively (P= 0.222)] or disease-free survival (DFS) [RFA group: 68%, 42%, 28%, respectively; HR group: 66%, 42%, 34%, respectively (P= 0.823)]. The 58 patients who underwent RFA demonstrated ablation success on follow-up computed tomography at 3 months. Of these, 96.5% of patients showed sustained ablation success over the entire follow-up period. In a subgroup analysis of patients with tumours measuring 2-5 cm, no differences in OS or DFS emerged between the HR and RFA groups. Similarly, no significant differences in outcomes in patients with Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis were seen between the RFA and HR groups. CONCLUSIONS: Radiofrequency ablation is comparable with HR in terms of OS and DFS. It is a reasonable alternative as a first-line treatment for HCC in well-selected patients who are not candidates for transplant.