Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24603710›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2014

Comparing staging systems for predicting prognosis and survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in Egypt.

Asmaa Ibrahim Gomaa, Mohamed Saad Hashim, Imam Waked

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Asmaa Ibrahim GomaaHepatology Department, National Liver Institute, Menoufiya University, Shebeen Elkom, Menoufiya, Egypt.
Mohamed Saad HashimHepatology Department, National Liver Institute, Menoufiya University, Shebeen Elkom, Menoufiya, Egypt.
Imam WakedHepatology Department, National Liver Institute, Menoufiya University, Shebeen Elkom, Menoufiya, Egypt.
Menoufia University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSeveral hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) staging systems are available. Although the European Association for Study of Liver Diseases (EASL) and American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) recommended the use of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC), many studies in different populations revealed heterogeneous results. The aim of this study was to compare different staging systems for predicting prognosis and survival, and for stratifying HCC patients for treatment at a national referral centre for liver disease in Egypt.

methods2000 Patients were included in this study. Baseline demographic, clinical, laboratory, and radiological data were determined at diagnosis. Patients were stratified using the Okuda, BCLC, Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP), and Japan Integrated Staging (JIS). Patients' survival in different stages within each staging system and the validity of the system in predicting survival were compared.

resultsThe overall survival was 15 months. The 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-year survival of the entire cohort was 56%, 34%, 25% and 15% respectively. The presence of ascites, multiple focal lesions, large tumour size >5 cm, portal vein thrombosis, extra-hepatic spread, AFP≥200 ng/ml and poor Child score were independent predictors of survival (p<0.001). All staging systems were significant in determining overall survival in univariate and multivariate analyses. BCLC was the most predictive staging system for the whole cohort (p<0.001). Among the subgroup of patients offered potentially curative therapy, BCLC was the most informative system in predicting patient survival (p<0.001). For patients with advanced HCC not amenable for specific therapy, CLIP was the best staging system for predicting prognosis (p<0.001).

conclusionBCLC staging system provided the best prognostic stratification for HCC patients. However, CLIP score has the highest stratification ability in patients with advanced HCC highlighting the importance of including AFP in best staging system.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnalysis of VarianceCarcinoma, HepatocellularCohort StudiesEgyptFemaleHumansLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPrognosisSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID24603710
PMCPMC3946382
OpenAlexW2067917838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.