Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 2706–2715 | Cite as

Radiofrequency ablation for subcardiac hepatocellular carcinoma: therapeutic outcomes and risk factors for technical failure

  • Dong Ik Cha
  • Tae Wook KangEmail author
  • Kyoung Doo Song
  • Min Woo Lee
  • Hyunchul Rhim
  • Hyo Keun Lim
  • Dong Hyun Sinn
  • Kyunga Kim
Interventional
  • 117 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the therapeutic outcomes and safety of radiofrequency (RF) ablation for subcardiac and non-subcardiac hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to evaluate the risk factors for technical failure of the procedure.

Methods

This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board. Between September 2002 and May 2016, 73 patients with subcardiac HCC and the same number of patients with non-subcardiac HCC matched by tumor size were included. Subcardiac HCC was defined as an index tumor that was located ≤ 1 cm from the pericardium in axial or coronal images. Cumulative local tumor progression (LTP) was compared between the two groups using the log-rank test. Prognostic factors for technical failure were assessed using multivariable logistic analysis.

Results

Technical success rates between both groups were not significantly different (91.8% in the subcardiac HCC group vs. 95.9% in the non-subcardiac HCC group; p = 0.494). The cumulative LTP rates were 15.4% and 19.1% at 3 and 5 years, respectively, in the subcardiac HCC group, and 10.7% and 15.5% in the non-subcardiac HCC group, without significant difference (p = 0.862). The distance between the index tumor and pericardium (odds ratio [OR], 0.14; p = 0.023) and tumor in segment IV (reference, left lateral sector; OR, 36.53; p = 0.029) were significant factors for technical failure in patients with subcardiac HCC.

Conclusions

RF ablation was an effective treatment for subcardiac HCC. However, tumor location should be considered in the planning of treatment to avoid technical failure.

Key Points

RF ablation for subcardiac HCC is technically feasible without major complications.

RF ablation was an effective treatment for subcardiac HCC in terms of LTP.

Risk factors for technical failure were distance of the index tumor from the heart (cutoff value of 0.5 cm) and the location of the tumor (segment IV).

Keywords

Liver Hepatocellular carcinoma Ablation techniques Heart Treatment outcome 

Abbreviations

CI

Confidence interval

CT

Computed tomography

HCC

Hepatocellular carcinoma

LTP

Local tumor progression

OR

Odds ratio

RF

Radiofrequency

ROC

Receiver operating characteristic

TACE

Transarterial chemoembolization

US

Ultrasonography

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Won Jae Lee.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statistics and biometry

One (Kyunga Kim) of the authors has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• Retrospective

• Case-control study

• Performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Shady W, Petre EN, Gonen M et al (2016) Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of colorectal cancer liver metastases: factors affecting outcomes--a 10-year experience at a single center. Radiology 278:601–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Association For The Study Of The Liver; European Organisation For Research And Treatment Of Cancer (2012) EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 56:908–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sasaki A, Kai S, Iwashita Y, Hirano S, Ohta M, Kitano S (2005) Microsatellite distribution and indication for locoregional therapy in small hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer 103:299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim YS, Lee WJ, Rhim H, Lim HK, Choi D, Lee JY (2010) The minimal ablative margin of radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma (> 2 and < 5 cm) needed to prevent local tumor progression: 3D quantitative assessment using CT image fusion. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:758–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hori T, Nagata K, Hasuike S et al (2003) Risk factors for the local recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after a single session of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation. J Gastroenterol 38:977–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Komorizono Y, Oketani M, Sako K et al (2003) Risk factors for local recurrence of small hepatocellular carcinoma tumors after a single session, single application of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation. Cancer 97:1253–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim SW, Rhim H, Park M et al (2009) Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinomas adjacent to the gallbladder with internally cooled electrodes: assessment of safety and therapeutic efficacy. Korean J Radiol 10:366–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Song I, Rhim H, Lim HK, Kim YS, Choi D (2009) Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma abutting the diaphragm and gastrointestinal tracts with the use of artificial ascites: safety and technical efficacy in 143 patients. Eur Radiol 19:2630–2640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kang TW, Rhim H, Kim EY et al (2009) Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for the hepatocellular carcinoma abutting the diaphragm: assessment of safety and therapeutic efficacy. Korean J Radiol 10:34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kang TW, Lim HK, Lee MW et al (2016) Long-term therapeutic outcomes of radiofrequency ablation for subcapsular versus nonsubcapsular hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matched study. Radiology 280:300–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sala M, Llovet JM, Vilana R et al (2004) Initial response to percutaneous ablation predicts survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 40:1352–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Llovet JM, Vilana R, Brú C et al (2001) Increased risk of tumor seeding after percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for single hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 33:1124–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Loh KB, Bux SI, Abdullah BJ, Raja Mokhtar RA, Mohamed R (2012) Hemorrhagic cardiac tamponade: rare complication of radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma. Korean J Radiol 13:643–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim YS, Lim HK, Rhim H et al (2013) Ten-year outcomes of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation as first-line therapy of early hepatocellular carcinoma: analysis of prognostic factors. J Hepatol 58:89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rhim H, Choi D, Kim YS, Lim HK, Choe BK (2010) Ultrasonography-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinomas: a feasibility scoring system for planning sonography. Eur J Radiol 75:253–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee S, Kang TW, Cha DI et al (2018) Radiofrequency ablation vs. surgery for perivascular hepatocellular carcinoma: propensity score analyses of long-term outcomes. J Hepatol 69:70–78Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kang TW, Lim HK, Lee MW, Kim YS, Choi D, Rhim H (2013) First-line radiofrequency ablation with or without artificial ascites for hepatocellular carcinomas in a subcapsular location: local control rate and risk of peritoneal seeding at long-term follow-up. Clin Radiol 68:e641–e651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Min JH, Lim HK, Lim S et al (2014) Radiofrequency ablation of very-early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma inconspicuous on fusion imaging with B-mode US: value of fusion imaging with contrast-enhanced US. Clin Mol Hepatol 20:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kang TW, Kim JM, Rhim H et al (2015) Small hepatocellular carcinoma: radiofrequency ablation versus nonanatomic resection--propensity score analyses of long-term outcomes. Radiology 275:908–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ahmed M, Solbiati L, Brace CL et al (2014) Image-guided tumor ablation: standardization of terminology and reporting criteria--a 10-year update. Radiology 273:241–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Filippiadis DK, Binkert C, Pellerin O, Hoffmann RT, Krajina A, Pereira PL (2017) Cirse quality assurance document and standards for classification of complications: the Cirse Classification System. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 40:1141–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Omary RA, Bettmann MA, Cardella JF et al (2003) Quality improvement guidelines for the reporting and archiving of interventional radiology procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:S293–S295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carberry GA, Smolock AR, Cristescu M et al (2017) Safety and efficacy of percutaneous microwave hepatic ablation near the heart. J Vasc Interv Radiol 28:490–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fluss R, Faraggi D, Reiser B (2005) Estimation of the Youden Index and its associated cutoff point. Biom J 47:458–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mulier S, Ni Y, Jamart J, Ruers T, Marchal G, Michel L (2005) Local recurrence after hepatic radiofrequency coagulation: multivariate meta-analysis and review of contributing factors. Ann Surg 242:158–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Teratani T, Yoshida H, Shiina S et al (2006) Radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma in so-called high-risk locations. Hepatology 43:1101–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu CH, Arellano RS, Uppot RN, Samir AE, Gervais DA, Mueller PR (2010) Radiofrequency ablation of hepatic tumours: effect of post-ablation margin on local tumour progression. Eur Radiol 20:877–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dong Ik Cha
    • 1
  • Tae Wook Kang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kyoung Doo Song
    • 1
  • Min Woo Lee
    • 1
  • Hyunchul Rhim
    • 1
  • Hyo Keun Lim
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dong Hyun Sinn
    • 3
  • Kyunga Kim
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical CenterSungkyunkwan University School of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Health Sciences and Technology, SAIHSTSungkyunkwan University School of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical CenterSungkyunkwan University School of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Statistics and Data Center, Research Institute for Future MedicineSamsung Medical CenterSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations