To explore the efficacy and safety of RALOX-HAIC (raltitrexed plus oxaliplatin) combined with lenvatinib in the treatment of elderly patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC), aiming to provide a safer and more effective therapeutic strategy for this patient population. A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 82 elderly patients with uHCC who received treatment in the Department of Interventional Radiology at Wuhan Union Hospital from January 2019 to December 2022. Patients were divided into two groups based on their treatment strategy: HAIC + Lenvatinib group (N = 39) and TACE group (N = 43). The primary endpoints were the objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) in the two groups. The secondary endpoint was the incidence of treatment-related adverse events in both groups. The ORR and DCR after treatment were higher in the HAIC + Lenvatinib group compared to the TACE group (61.5% vs. 37.2%, 82.1% vs. 58.1%, P < 0.05). The HAIC + Lenvatinib group had a longer median progression-free survival (mPFS,9.2 months vs. 4.6 months, P < 0.001) and ​median overall survival(mOS, 18.1 months vs. 10.6 months, P < 0.001) compared to the TACE group. The incidence of abdominal pain and fever was significantly higher in the TACE group than in the HAIC + Lenvatinib group (including all grades and grades 3/4, P < 0.05). The incidence of hand-foot syndrome (all grades) was higher in the HAIC + Lenvatinib group compared to the TACE group (15.4% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.009), but there was no significant difference in the incidence of grade 3/4 hand-foot syndrome between the two groups (2.6% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.476). This study demonstrates that RALOX-HAIC combined with lenvatinib provides superior survival outcomes and tolerability compared to TACE alone ​in elderly patients (≥ 70 years) with unresectable HCC. This combination therapy may be a feasible and safe option for improving the prognosis of elderly patients with uHCC.

BackgroundThe efficacy of RFA in the treatment of HCC with severe fibrosis is still unclear. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of RFA with liver resection in the treatment of HCC within Milan criteria.MethodsThe data used in the study were from the SEER database. Patients with HCC within Milan criteria were included in the study. A total of 1432 patients were included in the study; among them, 1038 patients received RFA, and 394 patients received liver resection. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce selection bias.ResultsBefore PSM, the median overall survival (mOS) and median cancer-specific survival (mCSS) in the resection group were longer than the mOS and mCSS in the RFA group. However, the8re were no statistically significant differences in mOS or mCSS between the two groups (both P>0.05). After PSM, similar results were presented, and the mOS and mCSS in the resection group were similar to those in the RFA group (both P>0.05). The multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that RFA did not increase the all-cause mortality risk and cancer-specific mortality risk compared with resection before PSM. In the competing risk analysis, after excluding the potential factors that might influence the outcomes, RFA still did not increase the mortality risk compared with resection before PSM and after PSM. In the subgroup analysis. The efficacy of RFA is comparable to that of resection in patients with tumor sizes no more than 3 cm before PSM and after PSM.ConclusionThe efficacy of RFA is similar to that of resection in the treatment of early HCC patients with severe fibrosis, especially in patients with tumor sizes no more than 3 cm.