LAUSR

Abstract Purpose To compared the benefits of sorafenib with microwave ablation (MWA) in intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with tumor size ≤7 cm and tumor number ≤5 after Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization (TACE) failure. Methods A retrospective, single-center study was conducted using a one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis and involved 52 intermediate-stage HCC patients with absence of evidence of intrahepatic vascular invasion and extrahepatic metastasis after TACE failure and underwent treatment with MWA or sorafenib between 2007 and 2019. The overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method. The factors with OS and PFS were determined by Cox regression. Results Of the 52 patients included in our study, 30 (57.7%) underwent MWA and 22 (42.3%) received sorafenib. After PSM, 22 pairs were enrolled into different groups for further analysis. Patients in the MWA-group had a significantly longer median PFS than patients in the sorafenib-group on both before (median, 9.3 vs. 2.8 months, p = .001) and after PSM (median, 9.0 vs. 2.8 months, p = .006). They also had a significantly longer median OS than patients in the sorafenib-group on before (median, 48.8 vs. 16.6 months, p = .001) and after PSM (median, Not reached vs. 16.6 months, p = .001). Besides, Cox regression analysis showed that the treatment and age were the independent prognostic factors of OS and PFS (p＜0.05). Conclusions MWA was superior to sorafenib in improving survival for intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with tumor size ≤7 cm and tumor number ≤5 after TACE failure. Key Points Compared with sorafenib, microwave ablation may be a more reasonable alternative treatment for intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with tumor size ≤7 cm and tumor number ≤5 after TACE refractoriness. The treatment (MWA vs sorafenib) and the age of patients were the independent prognostic factors of OS and PFS.