Selection and safety comparison of retreatment methods for elderly patients with recurrent small hepatocellular carcinoma

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2022.01.022

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To explore the selection of the treatment methods for elderly recurrent small hepatocellular carcinoma（SHCC）and compare their safety.

Methods

The data of 106 elderly patients with recurrent small liver cancer who received treatment from September 2015 to August 2017 were retrospectively analyzed，and they were divided into resected group（n=55 cases，resected surgery）and radio frequency group（n=51 cases，radio frequency ablation）according to different treatment methods. SPSS 23.0 statistical software was used. Hospitalization time and total survival time were expressed as（

x ˉ

±s），independent t test was used. The complication and recurrence rate were expressed by χ² test. The cumulative survival rate was analyzed by log rank test. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The length of hospital stay in the re resected group was longer than that in the radiofrequency（RF）group（P<0.05）；there was no significant difference in the total survival time between the two groups（P>0.05）. There was no significant difference in the overall survival time between the two groups（P>0.05）. There was no significant difference in 1-year and 2-year survival rate and recurrence rate between the resected group and the RF group（P>0.05）. The total incidence of complications in the radiofrequency group was 9.8%，which was lower than 25.5% in resected group（P<0.05）.

Conclusion

Compared with secondary resection，percutaneous radiofrequency ablation（PRFA）has significant advantages in postoperative recovery and reduction of complications in elderly patients with recurrent small hepatocellular carcinoma（HCC），but the short-term efficacy is similar.

Key words: Carcinoma，hepatocellular, Recurrence, Radiofrequency ablation, Reoperation, Postoperative complications

Gang Zhao, Chengli Liu, Xiaojun He, Yalin Kong, Lin Wang, Kun Guo. Selection and safety comparison of retreatment methods for elderly patients with recurrent small hepatocellular carcinoma[J]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(01): 76-78.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhpwkssxzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2022.01.022

https://zhpwkssxzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2022/V16/I01/76

Figures/Tables 4

References 13

[1]	陈德华，高志强，马雪松，等. 经皮射频消融治疗复发性肝癌的疗效及预后因素分析［J］. 肝胆胰外科杂志，2019，31（6）：340-343，351.
[2]	张代忠，刘明忠，赵宇. 二次切除手术与经皮射频消融治疗切除术后复发性肝细胞肝癌的临床疗效［J/CD］. 中华普外科手术学杂志（电子版），2018，18（5）：385-387.
[3]	Rastogi A. Changing role of histopathology in the diagnosis and management of hepatocellular carcinoma［J］. World J Gastroenterol，2018，24（35）：4000-4013.
[4]	苏伟力，齐二朋，高元瑾，等. 超声引导放射性粒子治疗复发性肝癌的疗效及安全性评价［J/CD］. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版），2020，17（4）：296-299.
[5]	李春丽，董巧云，侯丽，等. 二次切除手术与经皮射频消融治疗切除后复发性肝细胞肝癌的临床疗效和预后分析［J］. 中国医学装备，2019，16（12）：47-51.
[6]	Woubet Tefera Kassahun. Contemporary management of fibrolamellar hepatocellular carcinoma：diagnosis，treatment，outcome，prognostic factors，and recent developments［J］. World J Surg Oncol，2016，14（1）：151-152.
[7]	杜苏明，张小进，江艺. 补救性肝移植和再次肝切除治疗肝癌术后复发的疗效对比［J］. 局解手术学杂志，2016，25（6）：409-412.
[8]	刘嘉龙，黄登，曹利，等. 腹腔镜肝切除术和射频消融术治疗复发性肝癌的前瞻性随机对照研究（中期随访分析）［J］. 第三军医大学学报，2019，41（5）：467-472.
[9]	Liu YJ,，Ng KF,，Huang SC，et al. Composite hepatocellular carcinoma and small cell carcinoma with early nodal metastasis：A case report［J］. Medicine，2017，96（34）：e7686.
[10]	Ronot M,，Purcell Y,，Vilgrain V. Hepatocellular Carcinoma：Current Imaging Modalities for Diagnosis and Prognosis［J］. Dig Dis Sci，2019，64（4）：934-950.
[11]	严康，刘玮，秦学敏，等. 老年复发性小肝癌患者行再切除术与经皮射频消融术的疗效分析［J］. 肝胆胰外科杂志，2020，32（5）：286-289.
[12]	Ahn KS,，Kang KJ. Appropriate treatment modality for solitary small hepatocellular carcinoma：Radiofrequency ablation vs. resection vs. transplantation？［J］. Clin Mol Hepatol，2019，25（4）：354-359.
[13]	张波涛，崔智飞，段希斌，等. 射频消融术和腹腔镜肝切除术治疗复发性肝癌的临床疗效及远期生存情况分析［J］. 癌症进展，2020，18（5）：482-484，499.

组别	例数	男/女	年龄（岁）	肿瘤直径（cm）	Child-Pugh分级
组别	例数	男/女	年龄（岁）	肿瘤直径（cm）	A/B
再切除组	55	30/25	71.2±5.7	3.5±0.4	41/14
射频组	51	28/23	70.9±5.6	3.4±0.6	37/14
t/χ²值		0.001	0.273	1.016	0.054
P值		0.971	0.785	0.312	0.816
组别	例数	肿瘤位置	合并症	肿瘤数量
组别	例数	深部/浅层	C/D/E	单发/多发
再切除组	55	16/39	25/17/13	46/9
射频组	51	12/39	23/16/12	41/10
t/χ²值		0.421	0.027	0.189
P值		0.516	0.987	0.663

组别	例数	男/女	年龄（岁）	肿瘤直径（cm）	Child-Pugh分级
组别	例数	男/女	年龄（岁）	肿瘤直径（cm）	A/B
再切除组	55	30/25	71.2±5.7	3.5±0.4	41/14
射频组	51	28/23	70.9±5.6	3.4±0.6	37/14
t/χ²值		0.001	0.273	1.016	0.054
P值		0.971	0.785	0.312	0.816
组别	例数	肿瘤位置	合并症	肿瘤数量
组别	例数	深部/浅层	C/D/E	单发/多发
再切除组	55	16/39	25/17/13	46/9
射频组	51	12/39	23/16/12	41/10
t/χ²值		0.421	0.027	0.189
P值		0.516	0.987	0.663

组别	例数	住院时间（d）	总生存时间（月）
再切除组	55	13.5±2.6	33.1±6.2
射频组	51	5.7±1.5	33.7±5.9
t值		18.725	0.510
P值		<0.001	0.611

组别	例数	住院时间（d）	总生存时间（月）
再切除组	55	13.5±2.6	33.1±6.2
射频组	51	5.7±1.5	33.7±5.9
t值		18.725	0.510
P值		<0.001	0.611

组别	例数	生存率		复发率
组别	例数	治疗后1年	治疗后2年	治疗后1年	治疗后2年
再切除组	55	49（89.1）	41（74.5）	23（41.8）	27（49.1）
射频组	51	46（90.2）	39（76.5）	21（41.2）	26（51.0）
χ²值		0.035	0.053	0.004	0.038
P值		0.852	0.818	0.947	0.846

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export