ArticleJournal of hepatocellular carcinoma2015
Hapten-enhanced overall survival time in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma by ultro-minimum incision personalized intratumoral chemoimmunotherapy.
Article in Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Cellular immunity augmentation in mainstream oncologic therapy.Cancer biology & medicine · 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
19 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the therapeutic effects of ultra-minimum incision personalized intratumoral chemoimmunotherapy (UMIPIC) with intratumoral chemotherapy (ITCT) in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinomas and to analyze the effect of hapten as an immune booster. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients with advanced hepatocellular carcinomas were treated with UMIPIC or ITCT with the same therapeutic procedure; the UMIPIC method had a proprietary regimen including an oxidant, a cytotoxic drug, and hapten, while ITCT delivered the same drug excluding hapten. Of 339 patients in total, 119 of the UMIPIC patients (n=214) had response data and 214 had survival data, and of the ITCT patients (n=125), 61 had response data and 125 had survival data. Tumor response was assessed with a computed tomography scan 6-8 weeks after the initial treatment; the survival rate was evaluated by follow-up visits. Tumor size was classified as small (<5 cm), large (5-10 cm), or very large (>10 cm); tumor sizes with liver function categorized using Child-Pugh class (A and B) were analyzed by correlation with overall survival.
resultsThe response rates (complete response + partial response + stable disease) were 78.68% and 81.52% in the UMIPIC and ITCT groups, respectively, with no statistically significant difference; however, the median overall survival was 7 months for UMIPIC (test) and 4 months for ITCT (control), respectively (P<0.01). The 6-month and 1-year survival rates for UMIPIC and ITCT were 58.88% vs 32.3% and 30.37% vs 13.6%, respectively (P<0.01). Single and multiple UMIPIC revealed significant improvement in overall survival compared to that of ITCT. Child-Pugh class A patients had a longer duration of survival compared to Child-Pugh class B patients in UMIPIC therapy.
conclusionHapten had enhanced therapeutic effect with improvement in the survival duration in UMIPIC compared to ITCT. After reexamination, the response rate was not different due to inflammation caused by hapten. Hapten has been found to play an important role in immunotherapy to improve patient survival.
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.