Risk Group Stratification for Recurrence-Free Survival and Early Tumor Recurrence after Radiofrequency Ablation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Simple Summary Early detection and treatment of recurrence after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are important steps to improving patient survival. Although the prognosis after RFA for HCC may vary according to different risk levels, there is no standardized follow-up protocol according to each patient’s risk. This study aimed to stratify the patients according to their risk of recurrence-free survival (RFS) and early (≤2 years) tumor recurrence (ETR) based on predictive models and to evaluate whether the risk groups show differences in restricted mean survival times after RFA for HCC. Our predictive models were able to stratify patients into three groups according to their risk of RFS and ETR. The risk groups showed differences in RMSTs, which may be used to establish different follow-up protocols for the three risk groups. Abstract Purpose: Although the prognosis after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) may vary according to different risk levels, there is no standardized follow-up protocol according to each patient’s risk. This study aimed to stratify patients according to their risk of recurrence-free survival (RFS) and early (≤2 years) tumor recurrence (ETR) after RFA for HCC based on predictive models and nomograms and to compare the survival times of the risk groups derived from the models. Methods: Patients who underwent RFA for a single HCC (≤3 cm) between January 2012 and March 2014 (n = 152) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were classified into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups based on the total nomogram points for RFS and ETR, respectively, and compared for each outcome. Restricted mean survival times (RMSTs) in the three risk groups were evaluated for both RFS and ETR to quantitatively evaluate the difference in survival times. Results: Predictive models for RFS and ETR were constructed with c-indices of 0.704 and 0.730, respectively. The high- and intermediate-risk groups for RFS had an 8.5-fold and 2.9-fold higher risk of events than the low-risk group (both p < 0.001), respectively. The high- and intermediate-risk groups for ETR had a 17.7-fold and 7.0-fold higher risk than the low-risk group (both p < 0.001), respectively. The RMST in the high-risk group was significantly lower than that in the other two groups 9 months after RFA, and that in the intermediate-risk group became lower than that in the low-risk group after 21 months with RFS and 24 months with ETR. Conclusion: Our predictive models were able to stratify patients into three groups according to their risk of RFS and ETR after RFA for HCC. Differences in RMSTs may be used to establish different follow-up protocols for the three risk groups.