Resection or radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma? Assessment of validity of current studies, meta-analyses and their influence on guidelines

Abstract

Background: Two Cochrane reviews compared overall survival following liver resection (LR) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. The first from 2013, found moderate evidence for a survival advantage for LR over RFA when limiting the analysis to trials at low risk of bias. The second (2017), found no evidence for a difference in all-cause mortality for LR versus RFA. Aim was to assess the validity of the randomized controlled trials included in both Cochrane reviews and to investigate their impact on current guidelines.

Methods: The validity of the studies was analyzed using the CONSORT checklist. Two meta-analyses were then performed with all eligible studies from both meta-analyses. Finally, the impact of the result of the original meta-analyses on eight international guidelines was assessed.

Results: The four randomized controlled trials showed several inconsistencies (unclear or inadequate randomization, absence of sample-size calculation, missing blinded setup and/or conflicts of interest). All guidelines used recommendations based on the results of the meta-analyses or on studies included in the meta-analyses.

Conclusion: The analyzed studies showed a substantial lack of overall validity. However the results of these studies and subsequent meta-analyses are used as the evidence base for the majority of current guidelines.