Abstract
Background Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common malignant tumor composed of cells resembling hepatocytes. It is the fourth most common cause of cancer□related death on earth. Treatment involves radio frequency ablation (RFA)or hepatic resection (HR). This is a review & evaluation of evidence comparing either methods by using meta-analysis technique.
Materials and methods We conducted a database search of the PUBMED, GOOGLE SCHOLAR, Cochrane, EMBASE etc. in which total of 36 observational studies and 3 RCTs following PRISMA guidelines till September 2020 and matching inclusion and exclusion criteria were collected. These studies include total 16,700 patients out of which 8565 were treated with RFA & 8135 with surgery. The following search strings were used: “ RFA vs HR”, “hepatocellular carcinoma treatment “. The primary end point was overall survival rate in 3&5 years respectively, including hospital stay duration & local recurrence. RevMan 5.3 was used for appropriate statistical tests. Fixed and Random Effect Model Tests was used and p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results Meta-analysis showed that RFA was associated with significant decrease in the length of hospital stay for RCTs (SMD = -2.171, CI = -2.381 to - 1.962, p=<0.001) and non-RCTs (SMD = -1.048, CI = 1.492 to -0.937, p=<0.001) respectively. However, it was also associated with significant increase incidence of recurrence (RR = 1.749, 95% CI = 1.444 to 2.119, p=<0.001) and significantly poorer 3-year (RR = 0.850, 95% CI = 0.772 to 0.935, p=0.001); (RR = 0.941, 95%CI = 0.927 to 0.956, p=<0.001) survival chances for RCTs and non-RCTs respectively. 5-year survivability was (RR=0.856, 95% CI = 0.835 to 0.878, p=0.001).
Conclusion Although RFA was associated with decreased duration of hospital stay, it was associated with increased chances of recurrence compared to hepatic resection. 3-year survival rate was also poorer.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The reference section of the meta-analysis manuscript contains all the relevant links from where the data was collected and used in the analysis.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Email Address:- asdani98{at}gmail.com
Email Address:- khushi361999{at}gmail.com
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
