Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29879928›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2018

Comparison of hepatic resection and transarterial chemoembolization for UICC stage T3 hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching study.

Chong Zhong, Yong-Fa Zhang, Jun-Hai Huang, Cheng-Ming Xiong, Zi-Yu Wang, Qing-Lian Chen, Rong-Ping Guo

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Chong ZhongLingnan Medical Research Center, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, 16 Airport Road, Guangzhou, 510405, China. sumszhong@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4199-0509
Yong-Fa ZhangDepartment of Liver Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Jun-Hai HuangLingnan Medical Research Center, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, 16 Airport Road, Guangzhou, 510405, China.
Cheng-Ming XiongThe First Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, 510405, China.
Zi-Yu WangThe First Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, 510405, China.
Qing-Lian ChenThe First Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, 510405, China.
Rong-Ping GuoDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Cancer Center of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510060, China. guorp@sysucc.org.cn.

Funding

Guangdong Science and Technology Department 2016A020226052National Natural Science Foundation of China 81403397Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province 2014A030313408
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe optimal therapeutic strategy in UICC stage T3 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients that maximizes both safety and long-term outcome has not yet been determined. Our aim was to compare clinical outcomes following hepatic resection (HR) versus transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for stage T3 HCC.

methodsFrom 2005 to 2013, 1179 patients with T3 HCC who underwent HR or TACE were divided into two groups, HR group (n = 280) or TACE group (n = 899). The clinical outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching.

resultsThe propensity model matched 244 patients in each group for further analyses. After matching, medium overall survival (OS), 1, 3, and 5-year OS rates in TACE group were 11.8 (95%CI, 9.9-13.7) months, 49.6, 16.5, and 8.4%, respectively; which in HR group were 17.8 (95% CI, 14.8-20.8) months, 63.1, 33.3, and 26.4%, respectively; (log rank = 19.908, P < 0.01). Patients in HR group were more likely to develop pleural effusion, compared with those in TACE group (0.4% vs. 5.3%, P = 0.01). However, no significant differences in other adverse events (AEs) were found between two groups. Similar results were also demonstrated prior to the matched analysis. Multivariate analysis indicated that prothrombin time (PT), tumor size, tumor numbers, UICC staging status, and initial treatment were independent prognostic factors.

conclusionsOur study revealed that TACE was an option for UICC T3 HCC patients. However, HR seemed to be safe and yield a survival benefit compared with TACE, especially for patients with a good underlying liver function.

Indexed as

AdultCarcinoma, HepatocellularChemoembolization, TherapeuticFemaleHepatectomyHumansLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedPropensity ScoreSurvival AnalysisTreatment OutcomeHepatic resectionHepatocellular carcinomaPropensity score matching studyTACE

Identifiers

PMID29879928
PMCPMC5992633

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.