Repeat hepatic resection VS radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND This paper evaluates the efficacy and safety of repeat hepatic resection and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS We retrieved and collected all relevant articles from the inception to 8 March 2020. After data extraction, we conducted meta-analysis and carried out the heterogeneity test, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias test to evaluate reliability. RESULTS A total of 12 studies with 1746 patients (rHR 837, RFA 909) were included. rHR was similar to RFA in a one-year overall survival rate (OS), while rHR was superior to RFA in 3- and 5-year OS and 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates (DFS), but the procedure-related complications of RFA were significantly less than those of rHR. Among the subgroups with Milan criteria, rHR was similar to RFA in 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS and 1-year DFS, but superior to RFA in 3- and 5-year DFS. CONCLUSIONS RFA is the first choice for recurrent HCC meeting Milan criteria. When it does not meet the Milan criteria, minimally invasive treatment should not be carried out at the cost of survival, and rHR should be the first choice.