HCC is the third most common cause of cancer deaths worldwide and the fifth most common cancer (
2). In a study conducted in our country, the etiologic factors for HCC were hepatitis B (44.4%), hepatitis C (21.3%), hepatitis B + D (5%), alcohol (5.9%) and cryptogenic cirrhosis (19.5%) (
10). The distribution of patients in our study is similar to this data, hepatitis B (50%), hepatitis C (27.5%), hepatitis B + D (5%), alcohol (7.5%) and cryptogenic cirrhosis (10%).
Percutaneous ablation methods have emerged in recent years in the treatment of patients who cannot undergo surgical procedures. In one study, it was stated that percutaneous ablation methods had a higher cost-effectiveness ratio with surgical approach (
11). In the 1990s, percutaneous ethanol injection was the most commonly used method for this purpose. The inhomogeneous distribution of alcohol due to intratumoral septa and tumoral capsules; led to the search for minimally invasive different methods. Thermal ablation methods developed in recent years have taken place in many centers with ethanol ablation.
With today's developing technology, the efficiency of RF and MW ablation has increased. Several studies have reported that in small HCC lesions, thermal ablation methods provide tumor control and efficacy equivalent to surgical resection (
12-
15).
Another effect that emphasizes thermal ablation methods is that the proportion of effective tumor destruction is high, but the complication rate is lower than that of surgical treatment (
16-
19).
A number of publications comparing RF and MW ablation complication rates are available in the literature. In a study by Shibata and colleagues, the major complication rates of RF and MW ablation procedures were compared and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.36) (
19). In another study involving 155 patients (78 RFA, 77 MWA) conducted by Zhang et al., pain, fever, asymptomatic pleural effusion and major complication rates were compared between both groups and no significant difference was observed (
20). Therefore, in our study there was no significant difference in the minor complication development (X
2 = 1.580, P = 0.209 > 0.05) and major complication development (X
2 = 0.017; P = 0.895 > 0.05), compatible with the literature.
Surveillance studies related to percutaneous thermal ablation treatments have been studied many times in a number of centers. 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates in small HCC lesions were obtained for MW ablation (83 - 96%, 43 - 73% and 33 - 70%, respectively), and RF ablation (89 - 94%, 62 - 68% and 33 - 40%, respectively) (
21-
25).
The ratios in our study were slightly less than those in the literature. The number of patients and patient selection criteria were considered to be effective in these outcomes. Child C class patients decreased our survival rates, but this was not statistically significant. The detection of acceptable survival rates in Child C class patients also suggested that thermal ablation methods can be used effectively in Child C class patients.
Two methods were used in the study of Shibata and colleagues in 72 patients (36 RF, 36 MW); treatment sessions per nodule, total ablation duration, and treatment efficacy were compared. The treatment session per nodule was less in RF ablation than in MW ablation and the ablation duration per session was less than MW ablation in comparison to RF ablation. There was no significant difference in therapeutic efficacy between these two methods. (96% for RF and 89% for MW total ablation rate) (
9). In a study involving 97 patients performed by Xu et al., treatment efficacy, recurrence rates and survival rates were compared and there was no significant difference between the two methods (
26). Another study recently conducted by Zhang and his colleagues on 155 patients (78 RF, 77 MW), total ablation rates, relapse-recurrence rates and 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates were compared. One-, 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 70.5%, 42.3% and 34.2% for RF ablation and 62.3%, 33.8% and 20.8% for MW ablation respectively. RF ablation was found to be significantly better than MW ablation. No statistically significant difference was found in other components (
20).
Risk factors were compared for both groups, no significant difference was found and two group features were assumed to be equivalent. In the two groups with similar characteristics, total ablation rate after RF ablation was 92% and 90% for MW ablation, and there was no significant difference between the two methods in terms of efficacy of the technique. (P = 0.588) In parallel with the literature, the overall, disease-free and local progression-free survival rates after 6-months and 1-year were compared between RF ablation and MW ablation methods, and no statistically significant difference was found (P > 0.005).
According to the cox regression, similar to some previous studies, we found that the lesion size affected the overall survival. However, it had no effect on the other survival rates. For us this may depend on the success rate of the ablative efficiency of devices that we used.
Additionally, only gender was found statistically significant for disease-free and local progression-free survival. We think that this is related to our patient count and an it is insignificant finding.
There have been limitations in our study. The number of patients was found to be less than the studies in the literature and the relatively short duration of follow-up have been identified as the most important limitations. In addition, additional manipulations to achieve total ablation per session and the total time spent per session for RFA and MWA were not compared. Finally, studies similar to that in the literature, a single RF ablation electrode type and MW ablation antenna were compared. It was thought that this could lead to incomplete information in comparing the technical and technological characteristics of the two methods.
In conclusion, similar complication rates, tumoral ablative efficacy and survival rates were observed between percutaneous RF and MW ablation methods and there was no statistically significant difference between the two methods. Because of the use of electrodes and antennas for both methods, these results cannot be generalized for RF and MW ablation technology. However, the systems we used in our study and the results we found provide additional information on other studies and are also helpful in using the right method.