Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2009 Jun;197(6):728-36.
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.04.013. Epub 2008 Sep 11.

Comparative study of resection and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of solitary colorectal liver metastases

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparative study of resection and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of solitary colorectal liver metastases

Hyuk Hur et al. Am J Surg. 2009 Jun.

Abstract

Background: We compared outcomes in patients with solitary colorectal liver metastases treated by either hepatic resection (HR) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA).

Methods: A retrospective analysis from a prospective database was performed on 67 consecutive patients with solitary colorectal liver metastases treated by either HR or RFA.

Results: Forty-two patients underwent HR and 25 patients underwent RFA. The 5-year overall and local recurrence-free survival rates after HR (50.1% and 89.7%, respectively) were higher than after RFA (25.5% and 69.7%, respectively) (P = .0263 and .028, respectively). In small tumors less than 3 cm (n = 38), the 5-year survival rates between HR and RFA were similar, including overall (56.1% vs 55.4%, P = .451) and local recurrence-free (95.7% vs 85.6%, P = .304) survival rates. On multivariate analysis, tumor size, metastases treatment, and primary node status were significant prognostic factors.

Conclusions: HR had better outcomes than RFA for recurrence and survival after treatment of solitary colorectal liver metastases. However, in tumors smaller than 3 cm, RFA can be recommended as an alternative treatment to patients who are not candidates for surgery because the liver metastases is poorly located anatomically, the functional hepatic reserve after a resection would be insufficient, the patient's comorbidity inhibits a major surgery, or extrahepatic metastases are present.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Publication types