Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28993607›Full record

ArticleAnnals of transplantation2017

Liver Transplantation for High Risk Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Liver Resection: A Sequential or Salvage Approach?

Chih-Che Lin, Ahmed M Elsarawy, Wei-Feng Li, Ting-Lung Lin, Chee-Chien Yong, Shih-Ho Wang, Chih-Chi Wang, Fang-Ying Kuo, Yu-Fan Cheng, Chao-Long Chen

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of transplantation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Non-transplantable Recurrence After Resection for Transplantable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Implication for Upfront Treatment Choice.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chih-Che LinLiver Transplantation Center and Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Ahmed M ElsarawyLiver Transplantation Center and Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Wei-Feng LiLiver Transplantation Center and Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Ting-Lung LinLiver Transplantation Center and Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chee-Chien YongLiver Transplantation Center and Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Shih-Ho WangLiver Transplantation Center and Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chih-Chi WangLiver Transplantation Center and Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Fang-Ying KuoDepartment of Surgery Pathology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Yu-Fan ChengDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chao-Long ChenLiver Transplantation Center and Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital · TWChang Gung University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND Liver transplantation (LT) is the best radical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Salvage liver transplantation (SalvLT) provides good outcomes for recurrent HCC cases after initial curative liver resection (LR). However, the salvage strategy is not feasible in all situations due to aggressive recurrences. Recently, sequential liver transplantation (SeqLT) was proposed for cases that show adverse pathological features after LR, thus LT is performed pre-emptively before recurrence. In this report, we compared the outcomes of SalvLT and SeqLT for surgical treatment of HCC. MATERIAL AND METHODS One hundred and ten cases underwent LR for HCC, then were subjected to either SalvLT (n=91) or SeqLT (n=19), from January 2001 to December 2015. For cases that underwent several LR before LT, we collected the data of the last LR before transplantation. A comparison was made according to pre- and post-transplant clinical and pathological variables. Survival analysis and comparison between both pathways are provided. RESULTS The median interval (months) between LR and LT for the SeqLT group and the SalvLT group were 9.6 and 22.2, respectively. (p=0.01). The LR histopathological features were similar in both groups. In the SalvLT group, the histopathological comparison between the criteria of last LR and the criteria of liver explants revealed that 14 cases advanced from stage I to stage II, one cases from stage I to stage IIIa, one case from stage I to stage IIIb, one case from stage I to stage IIIc, three cases from stage II to stage IIIb and one case from stage II to stage IIIc. The overall rate of pathological upstaging in the SalvLT group was 27%. The incidence of post-transplant HCC recurrence was 5% (1/19) and 11% (10/91) for the SeqLT and SalvLT groups, respectively (p=0.4). The incidence of post-LT in-hospital mortality was 0% among the SeqLT group and 2% (2/91) among the SalvLT group. The estimated rates of five-year overall survival and cancer specific survival for the SeqLT group versus the SalvLT group were (92.3% versus 87.6%; p=0.4) and (92.3% versus 91.9%; p=0.7), respectively. CONCLUSIONS The SeqLT approach might be associated with low incidence of cancer recurrence, better overall survival, and less operative mortality. Another possible benefit is the avoidance of aggressive non-transplantable HCC recurrences. More studies and/or randomization are required for highre evidence conclusions.

Indexed as

AdultCarcinoma, HepatocellularDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHepatectomyHumansLiver NeoplasmsLiver TransplantationMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSalvage TherapySurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID28993607
PMCPMC12574083
OpenAlexW2761588954

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.