ArticleOncotarget2017
HabibTM 4X-assisted resection versus clamp-crush resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity-matching study.
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Positive Immuno-Modulation Following Radiofrequency Assisted Liver Resection in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Review
- Study to evaluate the immunomodulatory effects of radiofrequency ablation compared to surgical resection for liver cancer.Journal of Cancer · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Long term outcome of ablation-assisted hepatic resection is unclear for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. This study was scheduled to compare the outcome of Habib 4X ablation assisted resection (Habib group) with clamp-crush resection (CC group) for HCC. In this study, we retrospectively enrolled 81 patients from the Habib group and 103 patients from the CC group. Oncologic outcomes were analyzed using a propensity score matching (PSM) method. Compared with the CC group, the Habib group had higher levels of γ-glutamyltransferase (P=0.044) and albumin (P=0.001), larger tumor sizes (P=0.007), shorter operation times (P=0.001), less blood loss (P=0.005), and less blood transfusions (P=0.038). There were no significant differences in complications (P=0.310), recurrence-free survival rates (RFS, P=0.112), or overall survival rates (OS, P=0.203) between the two groups. For the 67 patient pairs selected from the PSM analysis, the Habib group had better RFS and OS (P=0.033 and P=0.014, respectively). A Cox proportional hazards analysis revealed that Habib-assisted resection was an independent factor for RFS and OS (P=0.008 and P=0.016, respectively). Furthermore, for the 42 patients with central and large tumors, the Habib group had better RFS and OS than the CC group (P=0.035 and P=0.038, respectively). However, the differences of RFS and OS (P=0.117 and P=0.126, respectively) were not significant among 92 patients with peripheral or small tumors. Hence, HabibTM 4X-assisted resection is safe and provides better survival for HCC patients, particularly those with central and large tumors.
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.