Copyright
©The Author(s) 2026.
World J Gastroenterol. Jan 14, 2026; 32(2): 113810
Published online Jan 14, 2026. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v32.i2.113810
Published online Jan 14, 2026. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v32.i2.113810
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the patient cohort (n = 362) used for analysis of secondary outcomes and the nodules cohort (n = 436) used to assess local tumor progression, n (%)
| Characteristics | Patients (n = 362) | Nodules (n = 436) | ||||
| MWA (n = 120) | Mbp-RFA (n = 242) | P value | MWA (n = 147) | Mbp-RFA (n = 289) | P value | |
| Age in years (IQR) | 65.52 (59.1-71.7) | 66.33 (59.3-72.2) | P = 0.81 | |||
| Male | 97 (80.8) | 211 (87.2) | P = 0.11 | |||
| Cirrhosis | 117 (97.5) | 226 (93.4) | P = 0.1 | |||
| Cirrhosis aetiologies | ||||||
| Viral hepatitis | 19 (15.8) | 44 (18.2) | P = 0.91 | |||
| NASH | 23 (19.2) | 44 (18.2) | ||||
| Alcoholic | 41 (34.2) | 74 (30.6) | ||||
| Other/mixed | 20 (16.7) | 39 (16.1) | ||||
| Child Pugh | ||||||
| Child Pugh A | 99 (82.5) | 211 (87.2) | P = 0.23 | |||
| Child Pugh B | 21 (17.5) | 31 (12.8) | ||||
| Platelet count | ||||||
| < 100 G/L | 47 (39.2) | 82 (33.9) | P = 0.32 | |||
| ≥ 100 G/L | 73 (60.8) | 160 (66.1) | ||||
| AFP | ||||||
| < 10 ng/mL | 86 (71.7) | 159 (65.7) | P = 0.39 | |||
| 10-100 ng/mL | 27 (22.5) | 60 (24.8) | ||||
| > 100 ng/mL | 7 (5.8) | 23 (9.5) | ||||
| Number of nodules treated per patient | 1.41 | 1.34 | P = 0.16 | |||
| Histological proof | 41 (34.2) | 198 (81.8) | P < 0.005 | |||
| Size | ||||||
| < 20mm | 69 (46.9) | 93 (32.2) | P < 0.001 | |||
| 20-30 mm | 55 (37.4) | 108 (37.4) | ||||
| ≥ 30 mm | 23 (15.6) | 88 (30.4) | ||||
| Tumour near large vessel | 20 (13.6) | 36 (12.5) | P = 0.735 | |||
| Subcapsular tumour | 74 (50.3) | 167 (57.8) | P = 0.139 | |||
| Proximity to the gallbladder | 4 (2.7) | 18 (6.2) | P = 0.114 | |||
| Segmental portal thrombosis | 0 | 3 (1) | P = 0.554 | |||
| Operator experience (months) | 107 (38-360) | 303 (105-331) | P = 0.026 | |||
| Guidance modality | ||||||
| By ultrasound alone | 49 (33.3) | 288 (99.7) | P < 0.001 | |||
| By scanner alone | 7 (4.8) | 1 (0.3) | ||||
| Mixed guidance (ultrasound + scanner) | 91 (61.9) | 0 | ||||
| Nodules treated per center | P < 0.001 | |||||
| Institution A | 35 (23.8) | 289 (100) | ||||
| Institution B | 112 (76.2) | 0 (0) | ||||
Table 2 Residual tumor and local recurrence rates as a function of lesion size and treatment group, n (%)
| Residual tumor (n = 491 nodules) | Local tumor progression (n = 436 nodules) | |||
| Total | MWA (n = 168) | 21 (12.5) | MWA (n = 147) | 37 (25.2) |
| Mbp-RFA (n = 323) | 19 (5.9) | Mbp-RFA (n = 289) | 33 (11.4) | |
| P value | 0.01 | P value | 0.002 | |
| < 30 mm | MWA (n = 141) | 17 (12.1) | MWA (n = 124) | 23 (18.5) |
| Mbp-RFA (n = 227) | 15 (6.6) | Mbp-RFA (n = 201) | 17 (7) | |
| P value | 0.071 | P value | < 0.002 | |
| ≥ 30 mm | MWA (n = 27) | 4 (14.8) | MWA (n = 23) | 14 (60.9) |
| Mbp-RFA (n = 96) | 4 (4.2) | Mbp-RFA (n = 88) | 19 (21.6) | |
| P value | 0.069 | P value | 0.04 | |
Table 3 Predictive factors of local recurrence (n = 436 nodules)
| Univariable analysis | Multivariable analysis | Multivariable analysis (competing risks) | ||||
| HR (95%CI) | P value | HR (95%CI) | P value | HR (95%CI) | P value | |
| Age (years) | 1.03 (1.002-1.06) | 0.037 | 1.02 (0.99-1.05) | 0.192 | 1.02 (0.98-1.06) | 0.15 |
| Sex (male vs female) | 0.62 (0.31-1.25) | 0.182 | - | - | - | - |
| Child Pugh (B vs A) | 1.85 (0.94-3.65) | 0.074 | 1.55 (0.75-3.2) | 0.233 | 0.72 (0.27-1.95) | 0.52 |
| Platelet count (for 50.000 additional platelet) | 1.09 (0.90-1.33) | 0.376 | - | - | - | - |
| AFP (for 100 ng/mL additional) | 1.10 (1.08-1.13) | < 0.001 | 1.05 (0.99-1.11) | 0.080 | 1 (0.94-1.01) | 0.48 |
| Tumor size (mm) | 1.08 (1.06-1.11) | < 0.001 | 1.08 (1.05-1.11) | < 0.001 | 1.07 (1.05-1.1) | 0.06 |
| Subcapsular HCC | 0.97 (0.60-1.57) | 0.900 | - | - | - | - |
| Proximity of HCC to large vessels | 1.29 (0.68-2.42) | 0.435 | 1.34 (0.69-2.59) | 0.393 | 1.14 (0.59-2.2) | 0.7 |
| Number of HCC nodules | 0.88 (0.71-1.08) | 0.224 | - | - | - | - |
| Treatment by ultrasound guidance alone | 0.40 (0.10-1.59) | 0.193 | - | - | - | - |
| Treatment by ultrasound and CT guidance | 0.92 (0.22-3.79) | 0.908 | - | - | - | - |
| Operator experience (per additional month) | 1.00 (0.998-1.002) | 0.963 | 1.00 (0.999-1.002) | 0.702 | 1.00 (0.999-1) | 0.9 |
| Thermoablation technique (MWA vs mbp-RFA) | 2.41 (1.48-3.90) | < 0.001 | 2.85 (1.69-4.81) | < 0.001 | 2.35 (1.3-4.3) | 0.005 |
Table 4 Major complications according to the society of interventional radiology classification (n = 362 patients)
| Society of interventional radiology classification | Treatment group | |
| MWA, n = 9 (7.5%) | Mbp-RFA, n = 23 (9.5%) | |
| Grade C | 4 (3.3%): 2 patients with portal thrombus requiring anticoagulation; 2 patients with symptomatic undrained pleural effusion | 9 (3.7%): 3 patients with portal thrombus requiring anticoagulation; 2 patients with symptomatic undrained pleural effusion; 1 patient with ascitic decompensation treated with diuretics; 2 patients with pneumopathy treated with antibiotics; 1 patient with soft tissue hematoma with pain |
| Grade D | 4 (3.3%): 2 patients with symptomatic pleural effusion with indication for pleural drainage; 1 patient with cessation of the procedure after treatment of the first nodule for dyspnea, transfer to intensive care; 1 patient with drained pneumothorax | 13 (5.4%): 8 patients with symptomatic pleural effusion with indication for pleural drainage; 2 patients with reactive cholecystitis (1 operated, 1 medically treated); 1 patient with an arterio-portal fistula requiring remote embolization; 2 patients with an infection of the surgical site (one with pre-hepatic collection, on with intra-hepatic collection in contact with the scar) |
| Grade E | 1 (0.8%): 1 patient with necrosis of the left lobe with stay in intensive care | 1 (0.4%): 1 biliopleural fistula requiring drainage and thoracoscopy |
| Grade F | 0 | 0 |
- Citation: Bahloul C, Rode A, Pradat P, Milot L, Dumortier J, Merle P, Mabrut JY, Boussel L, Della Corte A. Multibipolar radiofrequency vs single needle microwave ablation for the treatment of newly diagnosed hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2026; 32(2): 113810
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v32/i2/113810.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v32.i2.113810
