Liver resection had better disease-free survival rates compared with radiofrequency ablation in hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis based on randomized clinical trials.

Abstract

Liver resection (LR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are the most commonly used treatment modalities for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (ES-HCC). The comparative efficacy of LR and RFA in ES-HCC remains debated. We conducted a meta-analysis based on randomized trials to compare the outcomes of LR and RFA. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RFA and LR interventions for the treatment of ES-HCC. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). We used meta-regression to determine the source of heterogeneity and conducted a trial sequential analysis to examine whether the outcome was statistically reliable. Our meta-analysis included nine RCTs with a total of 1,516 HCC patients. Compared with patients receiving RFA, those receiving LR did not have significantly different 2-year OS (HR=1.28, 95% CI: 0.73-2.23) and 5-year OS (HR=1.49, 95% CI: 0.99-2.24). However, patients receiving LR showed a favorable trend in 2-year DFS (HR=1.40, 95% CI: 1.16-1.69) and 5-year DFS (HR=1.37; 95% CI: 1.05-1.77), although these results are not conclusive due to underpowered significance. The heterogeneity was low, and the outcomes were statistically reliable. Meta-analysis suggests that while LR shows a favorable trend in DFS compared to RFA for ES-HCC, the present evidence does not thoroughly support recommending LR over RFA. The inconclusive nature of these findings highlights the need for further large-scale RCTs to establish definitive comparative efficacy.