We read with interest the article by N'Kontchou et al. 1 concerning hepatocellular carcinoma treatment by radiofrequency ablation (RFA). They report an excellent series with impressive results in terms of both very low major complication and tract seeding rates as well as a considerable long-term survival. Their complete response rate is 94.7%. However, this was assessed by radiological methods (magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography) and not by pathological examination. As a result, the true response rate could be lower.Our modest experience with 30 hepatocellular carcinoma nodules treated by RFA before liver transplant was recently published. 2 We performed a pathological analysis of the explanted liver and found that only 14 nodules (46.7%) showed complete tumor destruction. In our study, the detection of RFA incomplete response by means of computed tomography scan had a 50% sensitivity and 100% specificity. The reported rates of complete pathological response in other works were variable but lower than those reported by N' Kontchou et al.: 20%,3 34.2%, 4 37.5%, 5 46.7%, 6 55%, 7 70.3%, 8 and 75%. 9 In these studies, as in ours, pathological examination was performed using hematoxylin-eosin stains.Although RFA cannot be considered as a radical or curative treatment, and the ideal situation would be complete tumor destruction, partial destruction is probably enough to increase long-term survival and, especially, to avoid patient drop-out from liver transplant waiting lists.
Reply:We fully agree with Dr. Rodriguez-Sanjùn et al. 1 concerning the importance of pathological examination after radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and we recognize the importance of their work that confirms previous reports. 2 Nevertheless, we cannot endorse their comment about our article 3 which suggest that RFA is only a palliative method in terms of completeness of tumor ablation. RFA is a name that covers disparate methods of treatment. From this point of view, there are some similarities with surgery. The authors would easily recognize that surgical results are not similar after enucleation versus anatomic resection or according to the experience of the operator. The field of RFA is filled with even more heterogeneity and the need for technical excellence is comparable. Differences from case to case might involve not only the experience of the operator, the type of probe, the type of cooling system but also the method itself. 4 The multiprobe multipolar technique that we have used since 2005 provides a larger and more focused and predictable volume of ablation, which allows treating larger tumors with a safety margin up to 1 cm. 5 This point is essential for achieving a complete histologically proven response. Conversely to patients treated by RFA using a single electrode, the patients treated by multipolar multiprobe technique who have been secondarily transplanted in our series did not have any tumoral remnants detectable by a careful histological examination either inside the tumor or in its immediate vicinity (unp...