ArticleSurgery today2017
Clinical factors that affect the outcomes after anatomical versus non-anatomical resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Surgery today, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The liver hanging maneuver in laparoscopic liver resection: a systematic review.Surgery today · 2018Pooled it
- What is the optimal surgical treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the debate between anatomical versus non-anatomical resection?Surgery today · 2022Review
- Short-term efficacy of precise hepatectomy and traditional hepatectomy for primary liver cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Article
- Effectiveness of Anatomical Resection for Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of a Multi-institutional Database.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021Article
- The Value of the C-Reactive Protein-to-Albumin Ratio is Useful for Predicting Survival of Patients with Child-Pugh Class A Undergoing Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.World journal of surgery · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFor hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the superiority of anatomical resection (AR) over non-anatomical resection (NR) is still controversial. In this study, we assessed the potential benefits of AR for HCC.
methodsWe enrolled 173 consecutive patients with HCC who underwent hepatectomy in our hospital from August 2003 to May 2013 and compared the outcomes for the AR group (n = 125) with those for the NR group (n = 48).
resultsThe median observational period was 790 days. The 1- and 2-year overall survival (OS) rates were 92.1 and 85.8 %, respectively; the 1- and 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 78.2 and 63.0 %, respectively. The AR and NR groups did not significantly differ in the OS or DFS. However, the 2-year DFS was significantly better for the AR group than the NR group among HCV patients (68.2 vs. 32.2 %; P = 0.004) and patients with alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) within the normal range (<20 ng/ml; 76.7 vs. 60.9 %; P = 0.031), total bilirubin <0.8 mg/dl (70.8 vs. 47.0 %; P = 0.034), and tumors 2-5 cm in diameter (82.0 vs. 62.5 %; P = 0.025).
conclusionsIf a patient is HCV-negative, has low AFP, low total bilirubin, or a tumor diameter of 2-5 cm, AR is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27502598What 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.