Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic liver resection versus radiofrequency ablation in patients with early and small hepatocellular carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis and meta-regression of observational studies
Authors: Shaaban Abdelgalil Mahmoud , Amer Basma Ehab , Yasen Noha , El-Samahy Mohamed , Awad Ahmed K. , Elfakharany Bahaa , Saeed Omar , Abd-ElGawad Mohamed 
Published: February 2024

Background

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common type of liver cancer, accounting for 90% of cases worldwide and a significant contributor to cancer-related deaths. This study comprehensively compares the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) versus laparoscopic or percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (LRFA or PRFA) in patients with early and small HCC.

Methods

We systematically searched Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to include studies comparing LLR versus LRFA or PRFA in patients with early HCC meets the Milan criteria (defined as solitary nodule < 5 cm or three nodules ≤ 3 cm with no extrahepatic spread or vascular invasion). Pooled results were examined for overall survival, disease-free survival, recurrence-free survival, local, intrahepatic and extrahepatic recurrence rates, and complications. We conducted subgroup analyses based on the type of RFA. Meta-regression analyzed the association between overall survival, local recurrence, and various factors. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. We analyzed the data using the R (v.4.3.0) programming language and the “meta” package of RStudio software.

Results

We included 19 observational studies, compromising 3756 patients. LLR showed higher 5-year overall survival compared to RFA (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.06, 1.3], P > 0.01). Our subgroup analysis showed that LLR had higher 5-year survival than PRFA (RR = 1.15, 95% CI [1.02, 1.31], P = 0.03); however, there was no significant difference between LLR and LRFA (RR = 1.26, 95% CI [0.98, 1.63], P = 0.07). LLR was associated with higher disease-free survival) RR = 1.19, 95% CI [1.05, 1.35], P < 0.01; RR = 1.61, 95% CI [1.31, 1.98], P < 0.01(and recurrence-free survival) RR = 1.21, 95% CI [1.09, 1.35], P < 0.01; RR = 1.45, 95% CI [1.15, 1.84], P < 0.01(at 1 and 3 years. LLR was associated with lower local (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.16, 0.47], P < 0.01) and intrahepatic recurrence (RR = 0.7, 95% CI [0.5, 0.97], P = 0.03) than RFA. However, complications were significantly higher with LLR (RR = 2.01, 95% CI [1.51, 2.68], P < 0.01). Our meta-regression analysis showed that younger patients had higher risk for local recurrence (P = 0.008), while age wasn’t significantly linked to overall survival (P = 0.25). Other covariates like total bilirubin, alpha-fetoprotein levels, and tumor size also showed no significant associations with either overall survival or local recurrence.

Conclusion

LLR offers improved long-term outcomes and lower recurrence rates than PRFA. However, no significant distinctions were observed between LRFA and LLR in overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and local recurrence. More robust well-designed RCTs are essential to validate our findings.