[Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for small hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta analysis]

To evaluate the curative effect of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and hepatic resection (RES) for small hepatocarcinoma eligible for Milan criterion using meta analysis method.

Retrieved clinical trials comparing percutaneous radiofrequency ablation with RES for small hepatocarcinoma published from 1990 to 2010. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate overall survival and disease free survival. A fixed random effect model or random effect model was established to collect the data.

Four randomized controlled trials were included in this analysis. These studies included a total of 539 patients: 252 treated with percutaneous RFA and 287 treated with RES. The differences in overall survival were not statistically significant between RFA and RES (P > 0.05). In the patients treated with RES group, the 2-, 3- and 4-years disease free survival rates were significantly better than that in the patients treated with percutaneous RFA (P < 0.05). The postoperative morbidity rate was significant lower in patients treated with percutaneous RFA (OR: 0.14, 95%CI: 0.09 - 0.22, P = 0.000). But percutaneous RFA had a higher rate of tumor recurrence compared to RES (OR: 2.63, 95%CI: 1.67 - 4.15, P = 0.000).

For small hepatocarcinoma eligible for Milan criterion, percutaneous RFA had a similar overall survival to RES. Percutaneous RFA was the invasive lesser and had a lower postoperative morbidity rate than RES, but RES may had a better prevention of the tumor recurrence than percutaneous RFA. For those patients who don't want to be treated by RES, percutaneous RFA may be a recommendable choice.