Higher Efficiency of Percutaneous Microwave (MWA) Than Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) in Achieving Complete Response in Cirrhotic Patients with Early Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Contrasting data are available in the literature regarding the superiority of percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in very early or early (BCLA 0 or A) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Aims: The primary outcome was to compare the efficacy of RFA and MWA in achieving complete response in cirrhotic patients with early and very early HCC. The secondary outcomes were to evaluate the overall survival and the recurrence rate. Methods: A retrospective, observational, single-center study was performed. Inclusion criteria were liver cirrhosis, new diagnosis of a single node of HCC measuring a maximum of 50 mm or up to three nodules with diameter up to 35 mm, treatment with RFA or MWA. Radiological response was evaluated with multiphasic contrast-enhanced Computed Tomography or Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 5–7 weeks after thermal ablation. Complete response was defined when no vital tissue was detected after treatment. Results: Overall, 251 HCC patients were included in this study; 81 patients were treated with MWA and 170 with RFA. The complete response rate was similar in MWA and RFA groups (out of 331 nodules, 87.5% (91/104) were treated with MWA and 84.2% (186/221) were treated with RFA, p = 0.504). Interestingly, a subanalysis demonstrated that for 21–35 mm nodules, the probability to achieve a complete response using MWA was almost 5 times higher than for RFA (OR = 4.88, 95% CI 1.37–17.31, p = 0.014). Moreover, recurrence rate in 21–35 mm nodules was higher with RFA with respect to MWA (31.9% versus 13.5%, p = 0.019). Overall survival was 80.4% (45/56) when treated with MWA and 62.2% (56/90) when treated with RFA (p = 0.027). No significant difference was observed between MWA and RFA treatment in the 15–20 mm nodules group. Conclusion: This study showed that MWA is more efficient than RFA in achieving complete response in HCC nodules with 21 to 35 mm diameter.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".