A cohort of 75 cirrhotic adults was educated about the natural history of HCC, treatment options, and the risks and the benefits of HR and RFA. Probability trade-off interviews were used to elicit participants' preferences between the two treatments and strength of their decisions.
RFA was preferred by 70% of participants (P聽=聽0.001) who identified the risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality of HR as the main reasons for their decision. Participants changed their minds if HR could provide better 5 (鈮?5%) and 3-y disease-free survival (鈮?0%) when compared with RFA. Their preference also changed when RFA had a median 鈮?% risk for complications, 鈮?% for mortality, 鈮?% for nonradical therapy, and 鈮?% for tumor seeding.
Informed cirrhotic patients prefer RFA for the treatment of ES-HCC. Participants who preferred RFA were more concerned about the risks of perioperative morbidity and mortality of HR than long-term cancer outcomes. Patients' values and attitudes toward risks and benefits for the treatment of ES-HCC should be explicitly elicited and included in multidisciplinary treatment decisions.