Survival following redo hepatectomy vs radiofrequency ablation for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Redo hepatic resection (RHR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are salvage treatment choices for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC). As yet, it is unclear as to which treatment modality is superior in terms of long term survival. The aim of this study was to compare the survival benefits and treatment efficacy of RHR and RFA for recurrent HCC.

METHODS: A literature review using the EMBASE, Medline, Google scholar, and Cochrane databases was performed. Meta-analyses were performed using an inference of variance, random effects model for 1, 3 and 5-year Disease Free Survival (DFS) and Overall Survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were major morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS: Five retrospective studies including 639 patients were eligible. Overall, there were no differences in 1, 3 and 5-year DFS or OS for patients undergoing RHR or RFA for recurrent HCC. Comparison between the two groups demonstrated similar 5-year DFS (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67-1.11, p = 0.250) and 5-year OS (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.83-1.27, p = 0.082). However, RFA had a lower morbidity rate (2%) compared with RHR (17%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates, neither RHR nor RFA appeared to be superior in terms of DFS and OS. Well-constructed, randomised, multicenter trials will be required to determine if a true difference exists.