Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29403561›Full record

ArticleOncology letters2018

Comparison of five staging systems in predicting the survival rate of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing trans-arterial chemoembolization therapy.

Zhan-Hong Chen, Ying-Fen Hong, Xiangwei Chen, Jie Chen, Qu Lin, Jinxiang Lin, Xing Li, Jing-Yun Wen, Dan-Yun Ruan, Min Dong and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncology letters, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Computational Modeling of Microwave Tumor Ablation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

17 authors.

Zhan-Hong ChenDepartment of Medical Oncology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Liver Disease, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510630, P.R. China.
Ying-Fen HongDepartment of Medical Oncology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Liver Disease, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510630, P.R. China.
Xiangwei ChenDepartment of Medical Oncology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Liver Disease, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510630, P.R. China.
Jie ChenDepartment of Medical Oncology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Liver Disease, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510630, P.R. China.
Qu LinDepartment of Medical Oncology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Liver Disease, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510630, P.R. China.
Jinxiang LinDepartment of Medical Oncology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Liver Disease, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510630, P.R. China.
Xing LiDepartment of Medical Oncology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Liver Disease, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510630, P.R. China.
Jing-Yun WenDepartment of Medical Oncology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Liver Disease, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510630, P.R. China.
Dan-Yun RuanDepartment of Medical Oncology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Liver Disease, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510630, P.R. China.
Min DongDepartment of Medical Oncology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Liver Disease, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510630, P.R. China.
Li WeiDepartment of Medical Oncology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Liver Disease, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510630, P.R. China.
Tian-Tian WangDepartment of Medical Oncology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Liver Disease, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510630, P.R. China.
Ze-Xiao LinDepartment of Medical Oncology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Liver Disease, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510630, P.R. China.
Xiao-Kun MaDepartment of Medical Oncology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Liver Disease, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510630, P.R. China.
Dong-Hao WuDepartment of Medical Oncology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Liver Disease, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510630, P.R. China.
Xiang-Yuan WuDepartment of Medical Oncology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Liver Disease, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510630, P.R. China.
Ruihua XuDepartment of Medical Oncology of Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510060, P.R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The majority of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergo trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE). However, the prognosis of HCC remains poor. In the present study, five staging systems were compared to predict the survival rate of patients with HCC undergoing TACE treatment. A total of 220 patients with HCC were examined according to the model to estimate survival for hepatocellular carcinoma (MESH), hepatoma arterial embolization prognostic score (HAP), modified HAP (mHAP), performance status combined Japan Integrated Staging system (PSJIS) and tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging systems. The endpoints of the study were 3-month survival, 6-month survival, 1-year survival and overall survival (OS) rates. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis indicated that the area under the curve of MESH, HAP, mHAP, PSJIS and TNM was 0.858, 0.728, 0.690, 0.688 and 0.699, respectively, in predicting 3-month survival rates; 0.822, 0.747, 0.720, 0.722 and 0.715, respectively, in predicting 6-month survival rates and 0.725, 0.664, 0.672, 0.645 and 0.654, respectively, in predicting 1-year survival rates. Discriminatory ability, homogeneity, monotonicity and prognostic stratification ability was evaluated using a likelihood ratio test and Akaike information criterion values among the five staging systems, and revealed that the MESH system was the optimal prognostic staging system for HCC. In conclusion, the results of the present study suggest that the MESH system is the most accurate prognostic staging system of 3-month survival, 6-month survival, 1-year survival and OS rates among the five systems analyzed in patients with HCC who have received TACE treatment.

Indexed as

hepatitis Bhepatocellular carcinomamodel to estimate survival for hepatocellular carcinomaprognosistrans-arterial chemoembolization

Identifiers

PMID29403561
PMCPMC5780749

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.