Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Recurrent Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Randomized, Open-Label, Controlled Trial.

Dandan Hu, Mengzhong Liu, Shiliang Liu, Aiping Fang, Mian Xi, Li Hu, Jing Zhao, Li Xu, Minshan Chen, Zhoutian Yang, Yizhen Fu, Zhongguo Zhou, Jingxian Shen, Qiaoqiao Li, Baoqing Chen, Yaojun Zhang

Journal: Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2025;43(9):1073-1082

PMID: 39693584

Abstract

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in treating recurrent small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

In this trial, patients with recurrent small HCC (single lesion ≤5 cm) were randomly assigned to receive either SBRT or RFA. The primary end point was local progression-free survival (LPFS), and secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), local control rate, and safety.

RESULTS

Between August 2019 and April 2022, 166 patients were assigned to SBRT (n = 83) and RFA (n = 83) groups. After a median follow-up time of 42.8 and 42.9 months in the SBRT and RFA groups, respectively, SBRT demonstrated a significantly better LPFS than that of RFA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45 [95% CI, 0.24 to 0.87]; = .014). The 2-year LPFS rates were 92.7% (95% CI, 87.3 to 98.5) with SBRT and 75.8% (95% CI, 67.2 to 85.7) with RFA. The median PFS time of the SBRT and RFA groups was 37.6 (95% CI, 26.0 to 49.2) and 27.6 (95% CI, 20.3 to 34.8) months, respectively (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.50 to 1.15]; = .190). Nine patients in the SBRT group and 10 in the RFA group died during the follow-up. The 2-year OS rates were 97.6% (95% CI, 94.3 to 100.0) in the SBRT group and 93.9% (95% CI, 88.9 to 99.2) in the RFA group (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.37 to 2.22]; = .830). The incidences of both acute and late adverse events were comparable between the groups ( = .436 and = .715, respectively).

CONCLUSION

SBRT achieved better LPFS than that of RFA in patients with single recurrent HCC ≤5 cm, especially in HCC ≤2 cm, whereas PFS, OS, and safety were comparable between the two treatments.

Address: State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Centre for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Guangdong Esophageal Cancer Institute, Guangzhou, China.; Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Centre for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Guangdong Esophageal Cancer Institute, Guangzhou, China.; Department of Liver Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Centre for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Guangdong Esophageal Cancer Institute, Guangzhou, China.; Department of Imaging Diagnosis and Interventional Center, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.; Department of Nutrition, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Food, Nutrition and Health, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.