Survival outcome of patients with spontaneously ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma treated surgically or by transarterial embolization

Figure 1 Flow diagram showing the treatment of 54 patients. Of the 54 patients enrolled, 6 (11.1%) underwent surgery and 25 (46.3%) transarterial embolization (TAE), and the remaining 23 (42.6%) patients received supportive care without hemostatic intervention.

Figure 2 Comparison of clinical parameters in the three treatment groups. A: Mean tumor size was significantly smaller in the surgical group than in the transarterial embolization (TAE) (P = 0.02) or supportive care (P < 0.01) groups; B: The single tumor rate was significantly higher in the surgical group than in the supportive care group (P < 0.01).

Figure 3 Comparison of Child-Turcotte-Pugh and Model for End-stage Liver Disease scores in the three treatment groups. A: The surgical group had better reserve hepatic function [Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) class] than the other two groups (both P < 0.01); B: Mean Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was higher in the supportive care group than in the other two groups (both P = 0.01), but was not different in the surgical and transarterial embolization (TAE) groups (P = 0.24).

Figure 4 Cumulative overall survival according to treatment types. A: Cumulative survival rates at 2-, 4- and 6-mo in the surgical group or in the transarterial embolization (TAE) group were significantly higher in the supportive care group (each, P < 0.01); B: Cumulative survival rates at 2-, 4- and 6-mo were significantly higher in the intervention group such as surgery and TAE than in the supportive care group (P < 0.01).