Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Irreversible electroporation versus radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a single centre propensity-matched comparison.
Freeman, Elliot; Cheung, Wa; Ferdousi, Sapphire; Kavnoudias, Helen; Majeed, Ammar; Kemp, William; Roberts, Stuart K.
Afiliação
  • Freeman E; Department of Gastroenterology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Cheung W; Department of Radiology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Ferdousi S; Department of Gastroenterology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Kavnoudias H; Department of Radiology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Majeed A; Department of Gastroenterology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Kemp W; Department of Medicine, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Roberts SK; Department of Gastroenterology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Scand J Gastroenterol ; 56(8): 942-947, 2021 Aug.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34057003
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND

AIMS:

Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a relatively new non-thermal ablative method for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to compare the longer-term efficacy of IRE to the standard thermal technique of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in HCC.

METHODS:

All patients who underwent IRE or RFA for HCC in our centre were identified and demographic and clinical data were analysed up until 1st March, 2020. Local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) was compared between groups after propensity score matching for age, gender, Child-Pugh grade, BCLC stage, lesion size and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level.

RESULTS:

A total of 190 HCC ablations (31 IRE and 159 RFA) were identified. After propensity score matching, we compared 25 IRE procedures (76% males, median age 62.4 years, median tumour size 20 mm) to 96 RFA procedures (84.4% males, median age 64.3 years, median tumour size 18.5 mm). LRFS did not differ between groups, with a 1-, 2- and 5-year LRFS of 80.4% (95% CI 55.8-92.2), 69.1% (95% CI 43.3-84.9) and 44.9% (95% CI 18.9-68.1%), respectively for IRE and 84.8% (95% CI 75.2-90.9), 71.3% (95% CI 58.3-81.0) and 52.1% (95% CI 35.4-66.4%), respectively for RFA (p = .63). There were no major procedure-related complications or deaths in either group.

CONCLUSIONS:

Whilst IRE remains a relatively novel therapy for HCC cases where standard thermal ablation is contraindicated, the LRFS in our centre is comparable to that of RFA. IRE should therefore be considered as a treatment option in such cases when available before stage-migration to non-curative therapies such as transarterial chemoembolization (TACE).
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Bases de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Quimioembolização Terapêutica / Carcinoma Hepatocelular / Ablação por Radiofrequência / Neoplasias Hepáticas Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Scand J Gastroenterol Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Austrália

Texto completo: 1 Bases de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Quimioembolização Terapêutica / Carcinoma Hepatocelular / Ablação por Radiofrequência / Neoplasias Hepáticas Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Scand J Gastroenterol Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Austrália