Letter to the Editor: “Radiofrequency ablation versus repeat resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (≤ 5 cm) after initial curative resection”
by Zhaonan Li, Dechao Jiao, Xinwei Han (email@example.com.)Radiofrequency ablation versus repeat resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (≤ 5 cm) after initial curative resection
We read with interest the study by Feng et al. , comparing radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to repeat resection in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this multicenter retrospective study, the cohort included 290 patients: 199 and 91 in the RFA and repeat resection groups, respectively. It pointed out that RFA has the same efficacy as repeat resection in recurrent HCC patients, but with fewer complications. Additionally, RFA is more efficient and safer than repeat resection in patients with 2 or 3 recurrent tumor nodules.
First of all, we congratulate the authors for the perfect match in this research. Twenty- four variables were included in the propensity score matched (PSM) analysis, 141 patients were excluded from the MWA group and 49 patients were excluded from the repeat resection group. However, the precision of the PSM analysis was not mentioned. In addition, the treatment of recurrent HCC should be a comprehensive and personalized treatment course [2-4]. However, in the process of design and exploration, the researchers failed to record the effects of immune-targeted drugs (such as sorafenib) after the use of resection or RFA in the cohort study. If this important adjuvant treatment is not considered, the comparison of results between the two groups will become meaningless.
In conclusion, we appreciate the authors’ efforts in exploration of the treatment with recurrent HCC. However, we suggest that appropriate modification would further confirm and greatly solidify the conclusions of the study.