Thermal ablation of hepatic hemangioma: A multi-center experience with long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Thermal ablation, currently used extensively for liver tumors, also has been applied. successfully to hepatic hemangioma; however, it is still considered experimental because previous studies have comprised small sample sizes with short follow-up periods. PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness, safety, and long-term outcomes of thermal ablation for hepatic hemangioma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From October 2011 to February 2021, the data of 357 patients with 378 hepatic hemangiomas treated by thermal ablation at six hospitals were analyzed in this retrospective study. The technical success, safety, and long-term follow-up results were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 252 patients (mean age, 49.2 ± 10.5 years) with 273 subcapsular hemangiomas underwent laparoscopic thermal ablation, whereas 105 patients with 105 hemangiomas located in the liver parenchyma underwent CT-guided percutaneous ablation. Of the 378 hepatic hemangiomas (5.0-21.2 cm), 369 lesions were subjected to one session of ablation, while 9 lesions were subjected to two sessions of ablation. Technical success was achieved in 100.0% of cases. Complete ablation was achieved in 361 of 378 hemangiomas (95.5%), while 17 hemangiomas (4.5%) were incompletely ablated, showing subtle enhancement at the peripheral rim. The major complication rate was 2.0% (7/357). The median follow-up period was 67 months (range, 12-124 months). Of the 224 patients with hemangioma-related symptoms, 216 demonstrated complete disappearance of symptoms (96.4%), while 8 were ameliorated (3.6%). Ablated lesion shrinkage was progressive, and 11.4% of hemangiomas almost completely disappeared over time (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: With a reasonable ablation strategy and comprehensive treatment measurements, thermal ablation could be a safe, feasible, and effective treatment option for hepatic hemangioma.

Anatomic resection versus radiofrequency ablation with an ablative margin ≥ 1.0 cm for solitary small hepatocellular carcinoma measuring ≤ 3 cm: Comparison of long-term outcomes using propensity score matching analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the long-term outcomes of anatomic resection (AR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with an ablative margin (AM) of ≥ 1.0 cm as first-line treatment for solitary hepatocellular carcinoma measuring ≤ 3 cm. METHODS: Two hundred and fifty-one patients who underwent AR (n = 156) or RFA (ablative margin ≥ 1.0 cm, n = 95) at any of 6 tertiary hospitals from 2009 to 2018 were enrolled. Propensity score matched analysis (PSM) were used to compare overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and perioperative outcomes. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors associated with RFS and OS. RESULTS: PSM created 67 patient-pairs. After 96 months of follow-up, RFA with an ablative margin ≥ 1.0 cm and AR showed comparable 1-year, 3-year, 5-year, and 8-year OS rates before (P = 0.580) and after (P = 0.640) PSM. However, RFS was better at 1, 3, 5, and 8 years after AR before (P = 0.0036) and after (P = 0.017) PSM. The operation time and postoperative hospital stay were significantly longer in the AR group than in the RFA group before and after PSM (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis identified age and type of treatment to be independent prognostic factors for RFS and age and hepatitis C to be associated with OS. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term OS was not significantly different between AR and RFA with an AM ≥ 1.0 cm in patients with a solitary hepatocellular carcinoma measuring ≤ 3 cm; but, RFS appeared to be better after AR than after RFA. However, RFA was associated with fewer perioperative complications and a shorter postoperative hospital stay.

Safety and efficacy of microwave versus radiofrequency ablation for large hepatic hemangioma: a multicenter retrospective study with propensity score matching.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for such hemangiomas (5-9.9 cm in diameter). METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study investigated the differences in technical success, ablation time, complete ablation, complications, hospital stay, and clinical response between MWA and RFA. A total of 452 patients with hepatic hemangiomas were screened. Propensity score matching was performed. Univariable and multivariate regression analyses were used. RESULTS: Among the 452 patients, 394 met the eligibility criteria and completed the follow-up. After the propensity score matching analysis, 72 pairs of patients were created. No technical failures were found. The RFA group had a longer ablation time (48.63 ± 18.11 min versus [vs.] 37.18 ± 15.86 min, p < 0.001), higher morbidity of hemoglobinuria (77.78% vs. 50.00%, p < 0.001), and longer hospital stay (5.01 ± 1.56 days vs. 4.34 ± 1.42 days, p < 0.05) than the MWA group. The treatment methods (p = 0.032, OR = 0.105, 95% CI = 0.013-0.821), size of the hemangioma (p = 0.021, OR = 5.243, 95% CI = 1.285-21.391), and time of ablation (p = 0.031, OR = 1.145, 95% CI = 1.013-1.294) were significant independent risk factors associated with hemoglobinuria. No recurrence or delayed complications were observed. There were no differences in complete ablation, clinical response, and health-related quality of life between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: MWA and RFA appear to be effective treatments for large hepatic hemangiomas. However, MWA had a shorter ablation time than RFA, and MWA was associated with fewer hemolysis-related complications and shorter hospital stays. KEY POINTS: • MWA and RFA appear to be effective treatments for large hepatic hemangiomas. • MWA had a shorter ablation time than RFA. • MWA was associated with fewer hemolysis-related complications and shorter hospital stays.

Complications of Radiofrequency Ablation for Hepatic Hemangioma: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis on 291 Cases.

PURPOSE: To report the complications of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatic hemangioma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Investigators from six centers performed RFA for hepatic hemangioma and used a standardized follow-up protocol. Data were collected from 291 patients, including 253 patients with hepatic hemangioma 5 to 9.9 cm in diameter (group A) and 38 with hepatic hemangioma ≥ 10 cm (group B). Technical success, complete ablation, and complications attributed to the RFA procedure were reported. Analysis of variance was used to determine whether the major complication rate was related to tumor size or clinical experience. RESULTS: A total of 304 lesions were treated in 291 patients. Technical success was achieved without adverse events in all cases. A total of 301 lesions were completely ablated, including 265 of 265 (100%) lesions in group A, and 36 of 39 (92.31%) in group B. The rate of technology-related complications was similar in groups A and B (5.14% (13/253) and 13.16% (5/38), respectively; P = 0.121). Moreover, all technology-related complications occurred during the early learning curve period. The rate of hemolysis-related complications in two groups were 83.40% (211/253) and 100% (38/38) (P =0.007) and the systemic inflammatory response syndrome-related complications in two groups were 33.99% (86/253) and 86.84% (33/38) (P<0.001). There were no delayed complications in either group. CONCLUSION: RFA is minimally invasive, safe, and effective for hepatic hemangiomas 5 to 9.9 cm in diameter. More clinical data are needed to confirm the safety of RFA for hepatic hemangiomas ≥ 10 cm.