A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Radiofrequency ablation for subcardiac hepatocellular carcinoma: therapeutic outcomes and risk factors for technical failure. | LitMetric

Objectives: To compare the therapeutic outcomes and safety of radiofrequency (RF) ablation for subcardiac and non-subcardiac hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to evaluate the risk factors for technical failure of the procedure.

Methods: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board. Between September 2002 and May 2016, 73 patients with subcardiac HCC and the same number of patients with non-subcardiac HCC matched by tumor size were included. Subcardiac HCC was defined as an index tumor that was located ≤ 1 cm from the pericardium in axial or coronal images. Cumulative local tumor progression (LTP) was compared between the two groups using the log-rank test. Prognostic factors for technical failure were assessed using multivariable logistic analysis.

Results: Technical success rates between both groups were not significantly different (91.8% in the subcardiac HCC group vs. 95.9% in the non-subcardiac HCC group; p = 0.494). The cumulative LTP rates were 15.4% and 19.1% at 3 and 5 years, respectively, in the subcardiac HCC group, and 10.7% and 15.5% in the non-subcardiac HCC group, without significant difference (p = 0.862). The distance between the index tumor and pericardium (odds ratio [OR], 0.14; p = 0.023) and tumor in segment IV (reference, left lateral sector; OR, 36.53; p = 0.029) were significant factors for technical failure in patients with subcardiac HCC.

Conclusions: RF ablation was an effective treatment for subcardiac HCC. However, tumor location should be considered in the planning of treatment to avoid technical failure.

Key Points: • RF ablation for subcardiac HCC is technically feasible without major complications. • RF ablation was an effective treatment for subcardiac HCC in terms of LTP. • Risk factors for technical failure were distance of the index tumor from the heart (cutoff value of 0.5 cm) and the location of the tumor (segment IV).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5868-2DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

subcardiac hcc
28
factors technical
20
technical failure
20
hcc group
16
ablation subcardiac
12
risk factors
12
non-subcardiac hcc
12
hcc
11
subcardiac
10
radiofrequency ablation
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!