ReviewWorld journal of hepatology2015
Assessment of clinical and radiological response to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma patients.
Review in World journal of hepatology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Efficacy of targeted hepatocellular carcinoma therapy using modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors and alpha-fetoprotein: A single center retrospective exploratory study.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2026Article
- Predicting survival of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma receiving combination targeted immunotherapy: an evaluation of volumetric imaging parameters.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- Towards a tailored systemic therapy for liver cancer.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
- Multibipolar Radiofrequency Ablation for the Treatment of Mass-Forming and Infiltrative Hepatocellular Carcinomas > 5 cm: Long-Term Results.Liver cancer · 2019Article
- Article
- Prediction of Response to Sorafenib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Putative Marker Panel by Multiple Reaction Monitoring-Mass Spectrometry (MRM-MS).Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sorafenib is an effective anti-angiogenic treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The assessment of tumor progression in patients treated with sorafenib is crucial to help identify potentially-resistant patients, avoiding unnecessary toxicities. Traditional methods to assess tumor progression are based on variations in tumor size and provide unreliable results in patients treated with sorafenib. New methods to assess tumor progression such as the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors or European Association for the Study of Liver criteria are based on imaging to measure the vascularization and tumor volume (viable or necrotic). These however fail especially when the tumor response results in irregular development of necrotic tissue. Newer assessment techniques focus on the evaluation of tumor volume, density or perfusion. Perfusion computed tomography and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced-UltraSound can measure the vascularization of HCC lesions and help predict tumor response to anti-angiogenic therapies. Mean Transit Time is a possible predictive biomarker to measure tumor response. Volumetric techniques are reliable, reproducible and time-efficient and can help measure minimal changes in viable tumor or necrotic tissue, allowing the prompt identification of non-responders. Volume ratio may be a reproducible biomarker for tumor response. Larger trials are needed to confirm the use of these techniques in the prediction of response to sorafenib.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.