TY - JOUR
T1 - Stereotactic body radiotherapy vs radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma
T2 - a meta-analysis
AU - Facciorusso, Antonio
AU - Chierici, Andrea
AU - Cincione, Ivan
AU - Sacco, Rodolfo
AU - Ramai, Daryl
AU - Mohan, Babu P.
AU - Chandan, Saurabh
AU - Ofosu, Andrew
AU - Cotsoglou, Christian
N1 - Funding Information:
This paper received no funding.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Background: There are limited and discording results on the comparison between stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the two treatments in terms of efficacy and safety. Research design and methods: A bibliographic search was performed on main databases through September 2020. Primary outcome was recurrence-free survival. Overall survival and adverse event rates were the secondary outcomes. Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) Results: Nine studies enrolling 6545 patients were included. Recurrence-free survival at 1-year was similar between the two treatments (OR 2.11, 0.67–6.63); recurrence-free survival at 2- and 3-year was significantly in favor of SBRT as compared to RFA (OR 2.06, 1.48–2.88 and 1.86, 1.07–3.26, respectively). In a meta-analysis of plotted HRs, SBRT significantly outperformed RFA (HR 0.50, 0.33–0.76, p = 0.001). Overall survival was similar between the two treatments (HR 1.03, 0.72–1.47). No significant difference in terms of severe adverse event rate was observed (OR 1.38, 0.28–6.71). Conclusions: SBRT prolongs recurrence-free survival as compared to RFA in HCC patients, although no significant survival benefit was demonstrated.
AB - Background: There are limited and discording results on the comparison between stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the two treatments in terms of efficacy and safety. Research design and methods: A bibliographic search was performed on main databases through September 2020. Primary outcome was recurrence-free survival. Overall survival and adverse event rates were the secondary outcomes. Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) Results: Nine studies enrolling 6545 patients were included. Recurrence-free survival at 1-year was similar between the two treatments (OR 2.11, 0.67–6.63); recurrence-free survival at 2- and 3-year was significantly in favor of SBRT as compared to RFA (OR 2.06, 1.48–2.88 and 1.86, 1.07–3.26, respectively). In a meta-analysis of plotted HRs, SBRT significantly outperformed RFA (HR 0.50, 0.33–0.76, p = 0.001). Overall survival was similar between the two treatments (HR 1.03, 0.72–1.47). No significant difference in terms of severe adverse event rate was observed (OR 1.38, 0.28–6.71). Conclusions: SBRT prolongs recurrence-free survival as compared to RFA in HCC patients, although no significant survival benefit was demonstrated.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85101775643&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85101775643&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/14737140.2021.1891887
DO - 10.1080/14737140.2021.1891887
M3 - Article
C2 - 33590783
AN - SCOPUS:85101775643
VL - 21
SP - 681
EP - 688
JO - Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy
JF - Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy
SN - 1473-7140
IS - 6
ER -