Prospective double-blinded randomized controlled trial of Microwave versus RadioFrequency Ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma (McRFA trial). Issue 8 (August 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chong, Charing C.N.; Lee, Kit F.; Cheung, Sunny Y.S.; Chu, Clement C.M.; Fong, Anthony K.W.; Wong, John; Hui, Joyce W.Y.; Fung, Andrew K.Y.; Lok, Hon T.; Lo, Eugene Y.J.; Chan, Stephen L.; Yu, Simon C.H.; Ng, Kelvin K.C.; Lai, Paul B.S.
• Is Part Of: HPB. Volume 22:Issue 8(2020)
• Page Start: 1121
• Page End: 1127
• Publication Date: 2020-08
• Subjects: Liver -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Biliary tract -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Pancreas -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.362005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.01.008
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1365-182X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Microwave (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation are the commonly used local ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Studies comparing both techniques are scarce. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of MWA versus RFA as a treatment for HCC. Methods: Patients with HCC who were suitable for local ablation were randomized into MWA or RFA. All patients were followed up regularly with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) performed at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after ablation. Both patients and the radiologists who interpreted the post-procedure CT scans were blinded to the treatment allocation. Treatment-related morbidity, overall and disease-free survivals were analyzed. Results: A total of 93 patients were recruited. Among them, 47 and 46 patients were randomized to MWA and RFA respectively. Patients in two groups were comparable in baseline demographics and tumor characteristics. With a median follow-up of around 30 months, there were no significant difference in the treatment-related morbidity, overall and disease-free survivals. MWA had a significantly shorter overall ablation time when compared with RFA (12 min vs 24 min, p < 0.001). Conclusions: MWA is no different to RFA with respect to completeness of ablation and survivals. It is, however, as safe and effective as RFA in treating small HCC.