Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30349373›Full record

ArticleCancer management and research2018

Importance of tumor size at diagnosis as a prognostic factor for hepatocellular carcinoma survival: a population-based study.

Guoyi Wu, Jing Wu, Baohua Wang, Xiaolei Zhu, Xiaolei Shi, Yitao Ding

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer management and research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors.

Guoyi WuDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China, m18936151218@163.com; njsxl2000@163.com.
Jing WuNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China.
Baohua WangNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China.
Xiaolei ZhuOffice of Noncommunicable Disease Control and Community Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China.
Xiaolei ShiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China, m18936151218@163.com; njsxl2000@163.com.
Yitao DingDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China, m18936151218@163.com; njsxl2000@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe effects of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) tumor size on clinical presentation and treatment selection and its role as a prognostic factor remain unclear. The present study is a comprehensive analysis of the clinical correlation between tumor size at diagnosis and pathological grades, clinical staging, disparities of treatment, and survival of patients with HCC. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients with HCC were separated into groups according to tumor size as follows: 0.1-2.0, 2.1-5.0, 5.1-10.0, and 10.1-20.0 cm. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the relationship between tumor size at diagnosis and pathological grade, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) historic stage A, and treatment selection. The survival of HCC patients stratified by tumor size was estimated by Kaplan-Meier and 5-year survival analyses using the log-rank test. Multivariable analysis of overall survival was performed using the Cox proportional hazards model. Tumor size at diagnosis was an independent risk factor of pathological grade, and SEER historic stage A was revealed by logistic regression analysis.

resultsThe 5-year survival rate was 21.9% vs 14.3% vs 9.2% vs 7.7% for all HCC patients and 31.2% vs 23.6% vs 20.3% vs 15.5% for patients who underwent surgery with tumor sizes of 0.1-2.0 vs 2.1-5.0 and 5.1-10.0 vs 10.1-20.0 cm, respectively; multivariable Cox regression analysis identified tumor size at diagnosis as an independent predictor of survival risk with HR of 1.00 vs 1.66 vs 2.92 vs 3.67, respectively.

conclusionTumor size at diagnosis could be used as an independent risk predictor associated with histological grade, stage, selection of surgery, and survival in HCC.

Indexed as

HCCoverall survivalprognosisSEERtumor size

Identifiers

PMID30349373
PMCPMC6188157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.