Retrospective cohort study compares survival outcomes in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma treated with different ablation techniques, suggesting implications for clinical practice.
This study aimed to compare the outcomes of no-touch radiofrequency ablation (NT-RFA) and conventional RFA (C-RFA) in the treatment of solitary recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) ≤ 3 cm. 255 patients with rHCC treated with RFA in our center from January 2017 to December 2023 were retrospectively analyzed (NT-RFA: 63, C-RFA: 192 patients). Short- and long-term outcomes were compared, and survival rates were calculated. The ablation range and safety margin differed significantly between the two groups (both p < 0.01). The 1-, 3-, and 5- years overall survival (OS) rates were 96.83%, 75.51% and 45.61% respectively in the NT-RFA group, while 97.39%, 77.48% and 48.56% in the C-RFA group, with no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.510). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates in the NT-RFA group were 73.02%, 46.22% and 36.77%, respectively, while 69.70%, 38.95% and 27.78% in the C-RFA group, with no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.338). The 1-, 3-, 5-year local tumor progression (LTP) free survival rates in the NT-RFA and C-RFA group were 84.13%, 67.04%, 67.04% and 78.02%, 53.70%, 48.80% respectively, with significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.047). However, there was no significant difference in intrahepatic distant recurrence free survival rates between the two groups (P = 0.068). NT-RFA treatment for rHCC ≤ 3 cm is as safe as C-RFA, but it achieves a larger ablation range and safety margin. Although NT-RFA does not significantly improve RFS or OS in rHCC ≤ 3 cm, it significantly reduces the LTP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: