ArticleMedicine2015
Clinicopathological features and prognostic factors of young patients with surgically treated liver cancer.
Article in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Prognostic analysis of systemic antitumor therapy in young patients with advanced liver cancer: A cohort study.Oncology letters · 2024Article
- The Mechanism and Prognostic Value of DNA Polymerase δ Subunits in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Implications for Precision Therapy.International journal of general medicine · 2022Article
- The SURF (Italian observational study for renal insufficiency evaluation in liver transplant recipients): a post-hoc between-sex analysis.BMC nephrology · 2019Observational
- High preoperative serum globulin in hepatocellular carcinoma is a risk factor for poor survival.Journal of Cancer · 2019Article
- DNA methyltransferase 1, 3a, and 3b expression in hepatitis C associated human hepatocellular carcinoma and their clinicopathological association.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2016Article
- Prognostic value of age in neurological cancer: an analysis of 22,393 cases from the SEER database.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2015Article
- Different patterns in the prognostic value of age for bladder cancer-specific survival depending on tumor stages.American journal of cancer research · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article compares the clinical characteristics and prognosis of young patients in different age groups with liver cancer (LC). In this retrospective study, we searched the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results population-based database and identified 2641 patients who had been diagnosed with LC between 1988 and 2005. These patients were categorized into 2 different age ranges: Group 1 (≤35 years) and Group 2 (36-45 years). Five-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) data were obtained. Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable Cox regression models were used to analyze the long-term survival outcomes and risk factors. There were significant differences between the age groups for stage and tumor size (P < 0.001). The 5-year liver CSS rate was 20.4% and 14.5%, respectively (P < 0.001). Univariate and multivariate analysis also confirmed the difference (P < 0.001). Further analysis showed that this significant difference existed in localized, regional, and distant-stage patients. Young patients with LC of age 18 to 45 years are inherently heterogeneous. Patients aged ≤35 years have better CSS than those aged 36 to 45 years, despite exhibiting unfavorable clinicopathological characteristics.
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.