Treatment strategies for solitary hepatocellular carcinoma: comparative outcomes of radiofrequency ablation vs. laparoscopic liver resection based on tumor location.

Boram Lee, Ho-Seong Han, Yoo-Seok Yoon, Jai Young Cho, Hae Won Lee, Jae-Hwan Lee, Yeshong Park, MeeYoung Kang, Jinju Kim
{"title":"Treatment strategies for solitary hepatocellular carcinoma: comparative outcomes of radiofrequency ablation vs. laparoscopic liver resection based on tumor location.","authors":"Boram Lee, Ho-Seong Han, Yoo-Seok Yoon, Jai Young Cho, Hae Won Lee, Jae-Hwan Lee, Yeshong Park, MeeYoung Kang, Jinju Kim","doi":"10.1007/s00464-025-11566-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The treatment of early stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has become increasingly complex. This study evaluates the effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for treating solitary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) ≤ 3 cm, with a focus on tumor location and depth.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients treated for solitary HCC ≤ 3 cm in the right liver lobe from 2004 to 2022. Tumor depth was categorized into three zones based on proximity to portal vein branches: Zone I (near first-order branches), Zone II (adjacent to second-order branches), and Zone III (near third-order branches). Outcomes were measured using overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 662 patients, for Zone I, II, and III, 240 (65 LLR, 175 RFA); 174 (100 LLR, 74 RFA); and, 248 patients were treated (244 LLR, 4 RFA), respectively. Statistically significant differences in the treatment outcomes based on the tumor depth were observed. For Zone I, LLR demonstrated superior OS (p = 0.043) and RFS rates (p = 0.030) than did RFA. For Zone II, both treatments had comparable survival outcomes, with no statistically significant differences in the OS (p = 0.460) and RFS (p = 0.358). For Zone III, LLR was principally favored, due to easier surgical access and cleaner margins.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study highlighted the importance of including tumor location and depth, in addition to the tumor size and liver function, in the management of early stage HCC. A multidisciplinary approach is essential for treatment planning and optimizing survival outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":22174,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-025-11566-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The treatment of early stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has become increasingly complex. This study evaluates the effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for treating solitary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) ≤ 3 cm, with a focus on tumor location and depth.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients treated for solitary HCC ≤ 3 cm in the right liver lobe from 2004 to 2022. Tumor depth was categorized into three zones based on proximity to portal vein branches: Zone I (near first-order branches), Zone II (adjacent to second-order branches), and Zone III (near third-order branches). Outcomes were measured using overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates.

Results: Of the 662 patients, for Zone I, II, and III, 240 (65 LLR, 175 RFA); 174 (100 LLR, 74 RFA); and, 248 patients were treated (244 LLR, 4 RFA), respectively. Statistically significant differences in the treatment outcomes based on the tumor depth were observed. For Zone I, LLR demonstrated superior OS (p = 0.043) and RFS rates (p = 0.030) than did RFA. For Zone II, both treatments had comparable survival outcomes, with no statistically significant differences in the OS (p = 0.460) and RFS (p = 0.358). For Zone III, LLR was principally favored, due to easier surgical access and cleaner margins.

Conclusions: This study highlighted the importance of including tumor location and depth, in addition to the tumor size and liver function, in the management of early stage HCC. A multidisciplinary approach is essential for treatment planning and optimizing survival outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
12.90%
发文量
890
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Uniquely positioned at the interface between various medical and surgical disciplines, Surgical Endoscopy serves as a focal point for the international surgical community to exchange information on practice, theory, and research. Topics covered in the journal include: -Surgical aspects of: Interventional endoscopy, Ultrasound, Other techniques in the fields of gastroenterology, obstetrics, gynecology, and urology, -Gastroenterologic surgery -Thoracic surgery -Traumatic surgery -Orthopedic surgery -Pediatric surgery
期刊最新文献
Impact of surgical timing on postoperative quality of life in acute cholecystitis: a comparative analysis of early, intermediate, and delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Meta-analysis of changes in skeletal muscle mass within 1 year after bariatric surgery. Robotic-assisted surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes: the Mayo Clinic experience. Commentary on "Multisociety research collaboration: timing of cholecystectomy following cholecystostomy drainage for acute cholecystitis". Comparison of primary duct closure versus T-tube drainage in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a propensity score matching analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1