Percutaneous treatment versus hepatic resection for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma is the first liver tumor worldwide. Therefore, it is a matter of debate whether surgical treatment or percutaneous treatment should be preferred for the treatment of patients with small hepatocellular carcinoma. The aim of our study was to compare the long-term outcome and the survival between surgically and percutaneously treated small hepatocellular carcinomas. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed in the department of hepatology during a period of 2009-2012. The study included all patients carrying small hepatocellular carcinoma which were divided in: group 1 including patients who underwent surgical treatment, and group 2 including patients who underwent percutaneous treatment. RESULTS: Among the 63 patients who were diagnosed for hepatocellular carcinoma, 28 carried a small hepatocellular carcinoma with a mean age of 63 years and sex-ratio of 0.64. Etiology of cirrhosis was viral in 96% cases. Surgical treatment (hepatic resection) was performed in 53.5% cases while percutaneous treatment was proposed for 46.5%: radiofrequency ablation in 69% and alcoholic injection in 31%. No major complications for both surgical and percutaneous treatment occurred in our study. Overall survival was significantly lower in the surgical resection group. The corresponding 6 months and 1-year overall survival rates for the surgical resection group and the percutaneous treatment group were 100%, 100%, 20%, and 52%, respectively (p=0,04). The disease free survival were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Our results showed the efficacy and safety of percutaneous ablation treatments which were better than those of surgical treatment in patients with small hepatocellular carcinoma.