Copyright
©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved.
World J Gastroenterol. Jul 14, 2013; 19(26): 4106-4118
Published online Jul 14, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i26.4106
Published online Jul 14, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i26.4106
Systematic review of surgical resection vs radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma
Alessandro Cucchetti, Matteo Cescon, Giorgio Ercolani, Antonio Daniele Pinna, General Surgery and Transplant Unit, Department of General Surgery and Organ Transplantation, Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
Alessandro Cucchetti, Policlinico Sant’Orsola-Malpighi, University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
Fabio Piscaglia, Division of Internal Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, S Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
Author contributions: Cucchetti A, Ercolani G and Cescon M performed the literature search and wrote the paper; Piscaglia F provided critical expertise and reviewed the paper; Pinna AD provided critical expertise and helped with focusing the topics.
Supported by A speaker fee from Siemens, research contracts with Esaote; and advisory board and speaker fee from Bayer to Fabio Piscaglia
Correspondence to: Alessandro Cucchetti, MD, Policlinico Sant’Orsola-Malpighi, University of Bologna, Via Massarenti, 9, 40138 Bologna, Italy. aleqko@libero.it
Telephone: +39-51-6363721 Fax: +39-51-304902
Received: March 26, 2013
Revised: April 26, 2013
Accepted: June 18, 2013
Published online: July 14, 2013
Processing time: 108 Days and 21.1 Hours
Revised: April 26, 2013
Accepted: June 18, 2013
Published online: July 14, 2013
Processing time: 108 Days and 21.1 Hours
Core Tip
Core tip: The present review shows the lights and shadows of the comparative literature regarding hepatic resection and radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Nineteen studies that directly compared these two therapies were found through an extensive literature review; of them, three randomized controlled trial were available for comparison whereas the remaining studies were represented by retrospective observational studies. Results are often conflicting and further randomized controlled trial are warranted; otherwise, retrospective observational studies should include in their analyses statistical approaches aimed at reduce possible confounding sources at a minimum.