ArticleOncotarget2017
Validation of different staging systems for hepatocellular carcinoma in a cohort of 249 patients undergoing radiotherapy.
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hsa‑circRNA‑G004213 promotes cisplatin sensitivity by regulating miR‑513b‑5p/PRPF39 in liver cancer.Molecular medicine reports · 2021Article
- Staging systems of hepatocellular carcinoma: A review.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is no consensus on predicting prognosis for hepatocellular carcinoma patients undergoing radiotherapy. This study aims to evaluate the validity of different staging systems. Overall, 249 hepatocellular carcinoma patients were evaluated retrospectively. All patients were classified by different staging systems. The cumulative survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and survival curves were compared using the log-rank test. Harrell's concordance index (c-index) was calculated. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 58%, 31% and 20%, respectively. Significant differences in overall survival were observed between stages I and II of the Okuda staging system (p=0.004), between scores of 3 and 4 of Cancer of the Liver Italian Program prognostic score (p=0.009), between Chinese University Prognostic Index low-risk and intermediate-risk groups (p=0.01), between 1 and 2 points of the Japan Integrated Staging score (p=0.037), between stages III and IV of American Joint Committee on Cancer 1997 TNM staging system (p=0.011), between stages II and III of American Joint Committee on Cancer 2002 TNM staging system (p=0.026) and between stages I and II of Guangzhou 2001 staging system (p=0.000). In conclusion, the Okuda staging system, Chinese University Prognostic Index, and Chinese Guangzhou 2001 staging system were more discriminative than the other staging systems in the prognostic stratification for hepatocellular carcinoma patients undergoing radiotherapy.
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.