Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a promising ablation technique and has become one of the best alternatives for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. But whether RFA or surgical resection (SR) is the better treatment for HCC conforming to the Milan criteria has long been debated. A meta-analysis of trials that compared RFA versus SR was conducted regarding the survival rate and recurrence rate. Pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using fixed or random effects models. Nineteen studies, comprising 2 randomized controlled trials and 17 non-randomized controlled trials, were included with a total of 2895 patients. The 5 years overall survival rate for SR group was significantly higher than that for RFA group. In the SR group, the local recurrence rate was significantly lower when compared with the RFA group. This meta-analysis yielded no significant differences between laparoscopic RFA and SR in 5-year overall survival rate. In conclusion, surgical resection remains the better choice of treatment for HCC conforming to the Milan criteria, whereas RFA should be considered as an effective alternative treatment when surgery is not feasible. As for RFA technique, laparoscopic approach may be more effective than percutaneous approach for HCC conforming to Milan criteria.
Keywords: Meta-analysis; Milan criteria; hepatocellular carcinoma; radiofrequency ablation; surgical resection.