Sundanceh said:

"Not the Only" - You're Right, Jas

Because I think I'm the ONLY liver person who just had the RFA done and not a liver resection....along with a fatty liver with stage 1 fibrosis to boot.

The studies I read (waiting room literature) stated:

"RFA success is Equal To - If not Better" than a liver resection...long considered the gold standard of treatment.

I'm living proof (8.7 years) that RFA is a bonafide procedure...Equal To...and perhaps better.

I've not recurred in the liver (docs/surgeon said I would)...and many others have recurred in liver WITH resection.

No definitive answer either way.

Mine was invasive, because they prepped me for a resection...until they opened and saw my liver...surgeon told my wife I would die on the O/R table...and that he was moving to RFA...the rest is history.

Mine was also a BIG tumor.....about 6cm X 8cm....size of an orange.

They say RFA is better and more effective for much smaller tumors, but I showed how it can be effective for very large tumors as well.

And while, we could not burn all of the tumor out, due to its location....he got the majority of it....and we finished up locally with 3x Cyberknife treatments.

It was...and is...considered a success story. 

-Craig

Solitary Colorectal Liver Metastasis Resection Determines Outcome FREE

Thomas A. Aloia, MD; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey, MD; Evelyne M. Loyer, MD; Dario Ribero, MD; Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, MPH; Steven H. Wei, MS, PA-C; Steven A. Curley, MD; Daria Zorzi, MD; Eddie K. Abdalla, MD, Researchers at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center at the University of Texas

 For HR as compared with RFA, the 5-year RFS rates (40% vs 0%, respectively; P = .006) and DFS rates (50% vs 0%, respectively; P = .001) were significantly higher. In addition, 3- and 5-year OS rates were higher after HR (79% and 71%, respectively) compared with RFA (57% and 27%, respectively) (P<.001).

Present study shows an 80% 3-year survival rate (and a 71% 5-year survival rate) after HR and well-established data showing 10- and 20-year survivors after HR of solitary and multiple metastases, even without adjuvant chemotherapy

 In contrast, survival was significantly shorter in patients treated with RFA. Local tumor recurrence appeared to be the major explanation for inferior survival after RFA (37% of patients found to have LR at a median follow-up interval of 31 months), which was reflected in the markedly reduced DFS rate in patients treated with RFA (0% at 5 years). Whereas the 5-year OS rate after HR was 71%, it was only 27% after RFA. This outcome after RFA is only marginally better than the carefully documented natural history of untreated solitary CLM in patients without extrahepatic disease reported by Wagner et al²⁶ more than 20 years ago.

Maxiecat said:

Thank you everyone for this

Thank you everyone for this discussion.   I have a liver MRI scheduled for tis Friday... To check out a liver lesion that was found in my ct scan from dec...don't know why the dr waited almost a month to order it.   Anyway I have been researching options if this issomething that has to come out.  I am signet ring...so I definitely don't want a biopsy....worried about abdominal seeding?  I have been looking into rfa.  

Alex

Arch Surg -- Abstract: Solitary Colorectal Liver Metastasis: Resection Determines Outcome, May 2006, Aloia et al. 141 (5): 460

Please read the article on RFA vs resection.  Resection has been shown to be much, much better than RFA.