Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Microwave Ablation Using ThermosphereTM Technology versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

There is limited information regarding the oncological benefits of microwave ablation using ThermosphereTM technology for hepatocellular carcinoma. This study compared the overall survival and recurrence-free survival outcomes among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after microwave ablation using ThermosphereTM technology and after radiofrequency ablation. Between December 2017 and August 2020, 410 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (a single lesion that was ≤5 cm or ≤3 lesions that were ≤3 cm) underwent ablation at our institution. Propensity score matching identified 150 matched pairs of patients with well-balanced characteristics. The microwave ablation and radiofrequency ablation groups had similar overall survival rates at 1 year (99.3% vs. 98.2%) and at 2 years (88.4% vs. 87.5%) (p = 0.728), as well as similar recurrence-free survival rates at 1 year (81.1% vs. 76.2%) and at 2 years (60.5% vs. 62.1%) (p = 0.492). However, the microwave ablation group had a significantly lower mean number of total insertions (1.22 ± 0.49 vs. 1.59 ± 0.94; p < 0.0001). This retrospective study revealed no significant differences in the overall survival and recurrence-free survival outcomes after microwave ablation or radiofrequency ablation. However, we recommend microwave ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma tumors with a diameter of >2 cm based on the lower number of insertions

Survival Benefit of Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy over Sorafenib in the Treatment of Locally Progressed Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKROUND: Not all patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) benefit from treatment with molecular targeted agents such as sorafenib. We investigated whether New-FP (fine-powder cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil), a hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy regimen, is more favorable than sorafenib as an initial treatment for locally progressed HCC. METHODS: To avoid selection bias, we corrected the data from different facilities that did or did not perform New-FP therapy. In total, 1709 consecutive patients with HCC initially treated with New-FP or sorafenib; 1624 (New-FP, n = 644; sorafenib n = 980) were assessed. After propensity score matching (PSM), overall survival (OS) and prognostic factors were assessed (n = 344 each). Additionally, the patients were categorized into four groups: cohort-1 [(without macrovascular invasion (MVI) and extrahepatic spread (EHS)], cohort-2 (with MVI), cohort-3 (with EHS), and cohort-4 (with MVI and EHS) to clarify the efficacy of each treatment. RESULTS: New-FP prolonged OS than sorafenib after PSM (New-FP, 12 months; sorafenib, 7.9 months; p < 0.001). Sorafenib treatment, and severe MVI and EHS were poor prognostic factors. In the subgroup analyses, the OS was significantly longer the New-FP group in cohort-2. CONCLUSIONS: Local treatment using New-FP is a potentially superior initial treatment compared with sorafenib as a multidisciplinary treatment in locally progressed HCC without EHS