RBV dose reduction was needed in 33% and blood transfusion in 16%. Infections were rare and there were no deaths. Early treatment discontinuation occurred in 24%, more often due to treatment futility (14%) than adverse events (10%). A sustained VR at week 12 post-treatment (SVR12) was achieved in 82% (95/115) of non-cirrhotics and 66% (28/42) of cirrhotics. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, presence of cirrhosis (OR 2.75, p = 0.03, CI 1.1–6.91) LDE225 clinical trial and non-IL28B CC (OR 11.73, p = 0.024, CI 1.39–98.69) were associated with failure to achieve SVR12. Conclusion: In this first

multi-center real-world study of clinical experience with BOC in Australia, treatment of a large well-compensated cohort with BOC demonstrated acceptable efficacy and safety data that were comparable to that in registration studies. Proteasome inhibitor MA CHINNARATHA,1 M-Y(A) CHUANG,2 R FRASER,1,2 RJ WOODMAN,1 AJ WIGG1,2 1School of Medicine, Flinders University of South Australia, 2Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia Percutaneous thermal ablation techniques [Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) and Microwave Ablation (MWA)] are commonly used worldwide

for treating early stage primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and are considered a curative treatment in properly selected candidates. This meta-analysis aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of the two modalities. Methods: Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane central) were searched from Jan 1980 to Mar 2014 for retrospective and prospective studies in humans and in English language comparing RFA and MWA. Abstracts in AASLD and EASL meetings for the past 3 years were also reviewed. Study quality was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. Primary outcome was the risk of local tumor progression (LTP); Secondary outcomes were complete ablation (CA) rate and major adverse events (AE) with these two techniques. Fixed/ random-effects model were used depending on the degree of heterogeneity and the outcomes reported using pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. Results: Overall, 10 studies (2 prospective

上海皓元医药股份有限公司 and 8 retrospective) with 1298 subjects were included. There was no difference in LTP rates between RFA and MWA [OR (95%CI): 1.01 (0.73–1.41), p = 0.9] (Fig 1). The CA rate [1.03 (0.64–1.66), p = 0.9] and major AE [0.56 (0.27–1.18), p = 0.13] were also similar between the two modalities. Subgroup analyses based on quality of studies, type of MWA generator used and treating very early or early BCLC stage HCC showed no difference in LTP rates between the two modalities. However, MWA showed lower LTP rates when treating larger/multiple tumors outside Milan criteria [1.88 (1.1–3.23), p = 0.02]. Only one prospective study compared the duration of the procedures and MWA sessions are an average 20 minutes less compared to RFA sessions.