Hepatocellular Carcinoma · Interventional Oncology · Salvage / Recurrent

Peng et al. 2012 (TACE + RFA vs RFA)

Clinical question: What are the efficacy and safety outcomes of recurrent hcc ≤5 cm?

Registry: No registry identifier reported · Prospective randomized trial; n=139. Evidence cut-off: 13 November 2026.

Design, eligibility and treatment

Population

Recurrent HCC ≤5 cm.

Intervention / comparator

Sequential TACE followed by RFA versus RFA alone.

Design

Prospective randomized trial; n=139.

Primary endpoint

Overall survival and recurrence outcomes.

Key efficacy outcomes

1-, 3-, 5-y OS 94%, 69%, 46% with TACE+RFA vs 82%, 47%, 36% with RFA alone; nominal p=0.037. A conservative Bonferroni threshold of p<0.0083 was cited for multiple comparisons.

Safety

Grade-specific toxicity not fully extractable from abstract-level source; no values inferred.

Interpretation and limitations

Promising but multiple-comparison-adjusted significance not established; procedural safety detail flagged for full-text review.

Median survival differences and hazard ratios must not be converted into NNT. A patient pictogram is omitted unless a defensible fixed-time absolute event difference is reported.

Primary and supporting sources

Primary publication

Registry / supporting source

Primary-source data reviewed; the page explicitly identifies unavailable full-text toxicity details rather than imputing them.

Current-practice context · 13 November 2026

Historical trial results are distinct from current treatment recommendations. Check current jurisdiction-specific guidance, liver function, biomarker requirements, local expertise and regulatory availability before applying these findings. Comprehensive guideline reconciliation and browser-rendered QA remain pending.