Published online Aug 28, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i32.9630
Peer-review started: February 11, 2015
First decision: March 10, 2015
Revised: March 29, 2015
Accepted: July 8, 2015
Article in press: July 8, 2015
Published online: August 28, 2015
Processing time: 198 Days and 11.2 Hours
AIM: To compare the efficacy of hepatic resection (HR) and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for patients with solitary huge (≥ 10 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
METHODS: Records were retrospectively analyzed of 247 patients with solitary huge HCC, comprising 180 treated by HR and 67 by TACE. Long-term overall survival (OS) was compared between the two groups using the Kaplan-Meier method, and independent predictors of survival were identified by multivariate analysis. These analyses were performed using all patients in both groups and/or 61 pairs of propensity score-matched patients from the two groups.
RESULTS: OS at 5 years was significantly higher in the HR group than the TACE group, across all patients (P = 0.002) and across propensity score-matched pairs (36.4% vs 18.2%, P = 0.039). The two groups showed similar postoperative mortality and morbidity. Multivariate analysis identified alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 400 ng/mL, presence of vascular invasion and TACE treatment as independent predictors of poor OS.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that HR can be safe and more effective than TACE for patients with solitary huge HCC.
Core tip: Hepatic resection (HR) and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) are the generally accepted treatment options for huge hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (≥ 10 cm), but the most appropriate treatment option for treating solitary huge HCC (≥ 10 cm) is controversial. This subtype of huge HCC involves similar clinicopathology and prognosis as small HCC after HR. Since reports of TACE to treat solitary huge HCC are limited, we compared the efficacy of HR and TACE in a retrospective analysis with and without propensity score matching.