Ignite Creation Date:
2024-05-06 @ 12:27 AM
Last Modification Date:
2024-10-26 @ 10:49 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT01570166
Status:
UNKNOWN
Last Update Posted:
2019-06-26
First Post:
2012-03-28
Brief Title:
Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Repeat Hepatectomy for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Sponsor:
Sun Yat-sen University
Organization:
Sun Yat-sen University
Study Overview
Official Title:
Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Repeat Hepatectomy for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Status:
UNKNOWN
Status Verified Date:
2019-06
Last Known Status:
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
Hepatocellular carcinoma HCC is the fifth most common cancer in the world Partial hepatectomy is still considered as the conventional therapy for HCC Intrahepatic recurrence of HCC after partial hepatectomy is common and was reported to be more than 77 within 5 years after surgery Repeat hepatectomy is an effective treatment for intrahepatic HCC recurrence with a 5-year survival rate of 194-56 This is comparable to the survival after initial hepatectomy for HCC Unfortunately repeat hepatectomy could be carried out only in a small proportion of patients with HCC recurrence 104-31 either because of the poor functional liver reserve or because of widespread intrahepatic recurrence In the past two decades percutaneous radiofrequency ablation PRFA has emerged as a new treatment modality and has attracted great interest because of its effectiveness and safety for small HCC 50 cm Studies using PRFA to treat recurrent HCC after partial hepatectomy reported a 3-year survival rate of 62-68 which is comparable to those achieved by surgery PRFA is particularly suitable to treat recurrent HCC after partial hepatectomy because these tumors are usually detected when they are small and PRFA causes the least deterioration of liver function in the patients To the best of our knowledge there has been no report published in the medical literature comparing the efficacy of repeat hepatectomy with PRFA for recurrent HCC The aim of this retrospective study is to compare the outcome of repeat hepatectomy with PRFA for small recurrent HCC after partial hepatectomy
Detailed Description:
Hepatocellular carcinoma HCC is the fifth most common cancer in the world Partial hepatectomy is still considered as the conventional therapy for HCC Intrahepatic recurrence of HCC after partial hepatectomy is common and was reported to be more than 77 within 5 years after surgery Repeat hepatectomy is an effective treatment for intrahepaticHCC recurrence with a 5-year survival rate of 194-56 This is comparable to the survival after initial hepatectomy for HCC Unfortunately repeat hepatectomy could be carried out only in a small proportion of patients with HCC recurrence 104-31 either because of the poor functional liver reserve or because of widespread intrahepatic recurrence In the past two decades percutaneous radiofrequency ablation PRFA has emerged as a new treatment modality and has attracted great interest because of its effectiveness and safety for small HCC 50 cm Studies using PRFA to treat recurrent HCC after partial hepatectomy reported a 3-year survival rate of 62-68 which is comparable to those achieved by surgery PRFA is particularly suitable to treat recurrent HCC after partial hepatectomy because these tumors are usually detected when they are small and PRFA causes the least deterioration of liver function in the patients To the best of our knowledge there has been no report published in the medical literature comparing the efficacy of repeat hepatectomy with PRFA for recurrent HCC The aim of this retrospective study is to compare the outcome of repeat hepatectomy with PRFA for small recurrent HCC after partial hepatectomy
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?:
None