Table. 2.

Baseline characteristics

Study Country Study type Study period Patient group Patients no. Age Sex (female, %) CTP grade
Chen et al. [17] (2006) China RCT 1999–2004 SR vs. RFA 42 vs. 37 49 vs. 51 17 vs. 21 A vs. A
Guglielmi et al. [35] (2008) Italy R 1996–2006 SR vs. RFA 24 vs. 21 NA 20 vs. 20 A, B vs. A, B
Hiraoka et al. [34] (2008) Japan R 2000–2007 SR vs. RFA 59 vs. 150 62 vs. 69 25 vs. 28 A, B vs. A, B
Ueno et al. [36] (2009) Japan R 2005–2008 SR vs. RFA 78 vs. 92 67 vs. 66 33 vs. 35 A, B vs. A, B, C
Huang et al. [18] (2010) China RCT 2003–2005 SR vs. RFA 45 vs. 57 56 vs. 57 26 vs. 31 A, B vs. A, B
Yun et al. et al. [37] (2011) Korea R 2000–2007 SR vs. RFA 215 vs. 255 52 vs. 57 20 vs. 23 A vs. A
Nishikawa et al. [38] (2011) Japan R 2004–2010 SR vs. RFA 69 vs. 162 67 vs. 68 28 vs. 41 A, B vs. A, B, C
Wong et al. [39] (2013) Taiwan R 2004–2009 SR vs. RFA 46 vs. 36 55 vs. 64 35 vs. 50 A vs. A
Desiderio et al. [40] (2013) Italy R 2004–2012 SR vs. RFA 22 vs. 19 66 vs. 64 29 vs. 20 A vs. A
Pompili et al. [19] (2013) Italy RM 1999–2010 SR vs. RFA 116 vs. 116 67 vs. 68 19 vs. 41 A vs. A
Imai et al. [41] (2013) Japan R 2000–2011 SR vs. RFA 101 vs. 82 63 vs. 67 26 vs. 44 A, B vs. A, B
Kim et al. [42] (2014) Korea R 2006–2010 SR vs. RFA 66 vs. 67 55 vs. 59 27 vs. 22 A vs. A
Yang et al. [20] (2014) Korea RM 2005–2006 SR vs. RFA 52 vs. 79 55 vs. 57 27 vs. 25 A, B vs. A, B
RM 2005–2006 SR vs. TACE 52 vs. 66 55 vs. 59 27 vs. 26 A, B vs. A, B
RM 2005–2006 RFA vs. TACE 79 vs. 66 57 vs. 59 25 vs. 26 A, B vs. A, B
Shi et al. [43] (2014) China R 2005–2011 SR vs. MWA 37 vs. 40 33 vs. 34 19 vs. 21 A, B vs. A, B
Kang et al. [21] (2015) Korea RM 2006–2010 SR vs. RFA 99 vs. 99 53 vs. 58 25 vs. 23 A, B vs. A, B
Vitali et al. [44] (2016) Switzerland R 1998–2012 SR vs. RFA 45 vs. 60 61 vs. 67 33 vs. 13 A, B vs. A, B
Kim et al. [22] (2016) Korea RM 2000–2009 SR vs. RFA 152 vs. 152 54 vs. 57 22 vs. 20 A vs. A
Lee et al. [23] (2018) Korea RM 2006–2010 SR vs. RFA 62 vs. 62 55 vs. 56 23 vs. 23 A, B vs. A, B
Cha et al. [45] (2020) Korea R 2008–2009 SR vs. RFA 145 vs. 178 53 vs. 57 26 vs. 19 A, B vs. A, B
Sun et al. [24] (2020) China RM 2004–2012 SR vs. MWA 41 vs. 51 25 vs. 23 19 vs. 21 A, B vs. A, B
Suh et al. [25] (2021) Korea RM 2005–2015 SR vs. RFA 657 vs. 653 66 vs. 6 24 vs. 28 A vs. A
RM 2005–2015 SR vs. TACE 657 vs. 745 55 vs. 59 24 vs. 29 A vs. A
RM 2005–2015 RFA vs. TACE 653 vs. 745 55 vs. 59 28 vs. 29 A vs. A
An et al. [26] (2021) China RM 2012–2018 RFA vs. MWA 70 vs. 74 57 vs. 57 10 vs. 12 A, B vs. A
Lee et al. [29] (2022) Korea RM 2005–2015 SR vs. RFA 232 vs. 159 22 vs. 2 27 vs. 25 A vs. A
Zhang et al. [28] (2022) China RM 2009–2018 SR vs. RFA 67 vs. 67 58 vs. 58 25 vs. 27 A vs. A
Ko et al. [27] (2022) Korea RM 2014–2016 SR vs. RFA 23 vs. 23 56 vs. 60 30 vs. 17 NA
Feng et al. [30] (2022) China RM 2011–2019 SR vs. MWA 71 vs. 83 77 vs. 78 20 vs. 24 A, B vs. A, B
Kang et al. [46] (2023) Korea R 2009–2018 SR vs. RFA 36 vs. 40 58 vs. 62 31 vs. 15 A vs. A
Wu et al. [31] (2023) China RM 2000–2018 SR vs. RFA 277 vs. 254 NA 25 vs. 24 NA
Wang et al. [32] (2023) China RM 2010–2019 RFA vs. MWA 137 vs. 75 55 vs. 55 26 vs. 25 A, B vs. A, B
Liu et al. [33] (2023) China RM 2002–2017 SR vs. MWA 118 vs. 63 59 vs. 62 12 vs. 88 A, B vs. A, B

CTP, Child-Turcotte-Pugh; RCT, randomized controlled trial; R, retrospective; RM, retrospective matched; SR, surgical resection; RFA, radiofrequency ablation; TACE, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization; MWA, microwave ablation; NA, not available.

Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2024;28:397-411 https://doi.org/10.14701/ahbps.24-103
© 2024 Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg