ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2018
Definitive locoregional therapy (LRT) versus bridging LRT and liver transplantation with wait-and-not-treat approach for very early stage hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSince the change in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) policy excluding patients with very early stage hepatocellular carcinoma (veHCC, single tumor nodule <2 cm) from receiving Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception points, patients eligible to receive liver transplantation (LT) who fall in this category are commonly treated with locoregional therapy (LRT) after progression to UNOS T2 stage (1 nodule of 2-5 cm or up to 3 nodules, none above 3 cm). The aim of the current study is to compare the outcomes of patients treated with bridging LRT and LT with wait-and-not-treat approach with patients treated with definitive LRT.
methodsA retrospective study has been performed on patients with veHCC evaluated in multidisciplinary liver tumor clinic of a large academic center between 2004-2011. Patients eligible for LT were assigned to the wait-and-not-treat group while patients who were not eligible were assigned to the definitive LRT group. Tumor size, time to treatment, severity of liver disease, recurrence and survival from time of detection were reviewed and recorded.
resultsA total of 19 patients were identified and treated with definitive LRT while 57 patients were treated with bridging LRT prior to LT after disease progression to T2 stage. Patients in the definitive LRT group were older (70.4±10.2 years vs. 58.7±5.9 years, P < 0.001) and had more comorbid conditions compared with the wait-and-not-treat group. Mean survival for definitive LRT group at the end of 5 years was 34.3±6.0 months with a median of 30.3 months (95% CI, 5.7-55.0 months) compared with 48.7±2.6 months for the wait-and-not-treat group, respectively (median not reached). The 3- and 5-year survival rates were 53.3% and 33.3% for the definitive LRT group compared with 78.9% and 68.4% for the patients in the wait-and-not-treat group. Survival rate at the end of 5 years was significantly better for the wait-and-not-treat group (P = 0.013).
conclusionBased on the findings of current retrospective study, treating veHCC (UNOS T1 stage) patients listed for LT with bridging LRT after disease progression to T2 stage appears to be safe and effective with high 5-year survival rates.
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.