IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0227242.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparisons of recurrence-free survival and overall survival between microwave versus radiofrequency ablation treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma: A multiple centers retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching

Author

Listed:
  • Shibin Du
  • Jian-Zhi Yang
  • Jing Chen
  • Wei-gang Zhou
  • Yan-Yan Sun

Abstract

Both microwave (MW) ablation and radiofrequency (RF) ablation are widely used for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatments in clinic. However, it is still unclear if ablative methods could influence the recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) of HCC patients. Therefore, we carried out this multi-center retrospective cohort study to investigate the differences of recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) between MW ablation and RF ablation by survival analysis. From January 2014 to December 2016, patients who received thermal ablation surgery for HCC treatment were screened. Finally, 452 patients met the eligibility criteria and finished the follow-up. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were used to identify independent predictive factors of the RFS and OS. Also, propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the bias between two groups. Finally, we found that before the PSM, the univariable and multivariable regression analyses revealed that there were no significant differences on the RFS between two groups. Same results were obtained for the OS. After PSM, 115 pairs of patients were created, and both the univariable and multivariable regression analyses suggested that there were still no significant differences on the RFS between two groups. Same results were obtained for the OS. In conclusion, our present study showed that there were no significant differences between MW ablation and RF ablation for HCC patients on the RFS or OS.

Suggested Citation

  • Shibin Du & Jian-Zhi Yang & Jing Chen & Wei-gang Zhou & Yan-Yan Sun, 2020. "Comparisons of recurrence-free survival and overall survival between microwave versus radiofrequency ablation treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma: A multiple centers retrospective cohort study with," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0227242
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227242
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227242
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227242&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0227242?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0227242. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.