Clinical outcome of small hepatocellular carcinoma after different treatments: A meta-analysis

Table 1 Characteristics of cases using surgical resection vs nonsurgical ablations

Ref.	Treatment	M/F	Mean tumor size (cm)	Mean age (yr)	Mean AFP (ng/mL)	Child-Pugh A/B	Mean follow-up (mo)
Huang et al[9]	PEI	19/19	≤ 2.0 (n = 21)	63 ± 10.9	> 200 (n = 7)	29/3	37.7 ± 14.5
	RES	27/11	≤ 2.0 (n = 24)	59 ± 11.4	> 200 (n = 8)	28/0	38.4 ± 16.4
Chen et al[10]	RFA	56/15	≤ 3.0 (n = 37)	51.9 ± 11.2	> 200 (n = 31)	71/0	27.9 ± 10.6
	RES	75/15	≤ 3.0 (n = 42)	49.4 ± 10.9	> 200 (n = 30)	90/0	29.2 ± 11.9
Huang et al[11]	RFA	85/30	≤ 3.0 (n = 45)	55.91 ± 12.68	> 400 (n = 32)	106/9	37.2 (6.0-60)
	RES	79/36	≤ 3.0 (n = 57)	56.57 ± 14.30	> 400 (n = 21)	110/5	46.4 (1.2-60)
Feng et al[12]	RFA	79/5	≤ 2.0 (n = 31)	51 (24-83)	215.5 (0.5-8530)	39/45	36
	RES	75/9	≤ 2.0 (n = 25)	47 (18-76)	262.8 (1.7-10220)	43/41	36
Cho et al[13]	PEI	86/30	≤ 2.0 (n = 43)	58.0 ± 9.7	> 20 (n = 47)	92/24	68
	RES	91/25	≤ 2.0 (n = 43)	56.0 ± 8.9	> 20 (n = 47)	92/24	68
Abu-Hilal et al[14]	RFA	27/7	3.8 (1.3-5)	65	-	27/7	30 (0-60)
	RES	26/8	3.0 (2-5)	67	-	25/9	43 (2-129)
Ueno et al[15]	RFA	100/55	2.7 ± 0.1	66 (40-79)	131 ± 33	-	36.8 ± 1.5
	RES	82/41	2.0 ± 0.1	67 (28-85)	382 ± 108	-	35.0 ± 1.7
Kagawa et al[16]	RFA + TACE	39/23	≤ 2.0 (n = 19)	67.5 ± 8.4	> 400 (n = 5)	-	49 (1-102)
	RES	40/15	≤ 2.0 (n = 9)	66.1 ± 8.4	> 400 (n = 10)	-	50 (9-95)
Nishikawa et al[17]	RFA	95/67	1.99 ± 0.62	68.4 ± 8.7	74.7 ± 181.1	102/22	37.2 (2.4-84)
	RES	50/19	2.68 ± 0.49	67.4 ± 9.7	376 ± 1989.8	45/5	39.6 (8.4-84)
Guo et al[18]	RFA	78/16	≤ 3.0 (n = 62)	56 (19-75)	> 200 (n = 34)	63/31	28 (7-75)
	RES	94/8	≤ 3.0 (n = 75)	51.5 (18-75)	> 200 (n = 34)	95/7	32 (6-86)
Kim et al[19]	RFA + TACE	31/6	3.46 ± 0.75	61.7 ± 11.1	≥ 100 (n = 7)	37/0	29.9 ± 7.8
	RES	36/11	3.66 ± 0.76	58.8 ± 10.7	≥ 100 (n = 14)	45/2	31.7 ± 10
Lai et al[20]	RFA	19/12	1.8 ± 0.6	63.1 ± 12.8	201.3 (2-2221.9)	-	35.1 ± 17.4
	RES	55/25	2.9 ± 1.1	60.8 ± 9.9	256.5 (91.5-5193)	-	29.7 ± 19.9

RES: Resection; RFA: Radiofrequency ablation; PEI: Percutaneous ethanol injection; TACE: Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization; M: Male; F: Female; AFP: Alpha-fetoprotein.

Table 2 Characteristics of cases involving percutaneous ethanol injection vs radiofrequency ablation

Ref.	Treatment	M/F	Mean tumor size (cm)	Mean age (yr)	Mean AFP (ng/mL)	Child-Pugh A/B	Mean follow-up (mo)
Brunello et al[21]	PEI	49/30	2.25 ± 0.54	70.3 ± 8.1	16.5 (MD)	39/30	25.3 (MD)
	RFA	43/27	2.42 ± 0.49	69.0 ± 7.7	22.0 (MD)	39/31	26.1 (MD)
Lin et al[22]	PEI	34/18	2.8 ± 0.9	67 ± 6.0	> 400 (n = 8)	39/12	23.8 ± 10.4
	RFA	35/17	2.9 ± 0.8	59 ± 10	> 400 (n = 7)	41/11	24.5 ± 11.3
Shiina et al[23]	PEI	87/27	≤ 2.0 (n = 57)	≤ 65 (n = 41)	> 400 (n = 7)	85/29	2.9 (MD)
	RFA	79/39	≤ 2.0 (n = 45)	≤ 65 (n = 45)	> 400 (n = 6)	85/33	3.1 (MD)
Lin et al[24]	PEI	39/23	2.3 ± 0.8	60 ± 8	400 (n = 9)	47/15	26 ± 12
	RES	30/22	2.5 ± 1.0	61 ± 10	400 (n = 10)	46/46	28 ± 12
Lencioni et al[25]	PEI	30/20	2.8 ± 0.8	69 ± 7.4	54 (MD)	35/15	22.4 ± 8.6
	RFA	36/16	2.8 ± 0.6	67 ± 6.0	57 (MD)	45/7	22.9 ± 9.4

PEI: Percutaneous ethanol injection; RFA: Radiofrequency ablation; M: Male; F: Female; AFP: Alpha-fetoprotein; MD: Median; RES: Resection.