ReviewTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology2018
Transplantation for hepatocellular cancer: pushing to the limits?
Review in Translational gastroenterology and hepatology, 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.
- New trends and perspectives in hepatobiliary surgery: preface.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Milan criteria (MC) represents the cornerstone in the selection of patients with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) waiting for liver transplantation (LT). MC represent the precursor of the scores based on the idea of "utility": in other terms, the scoring systems typically used in the field of LT oncology present the exclusive aim of selecting the cases with the best post-LT outcomes. However, some other scores have been proposed specifically investigating the risk of death or tumour progression during the waiting list. In this case, the selection process is connected with the idea of "priority": patients at higher risk for drop-out (DO) should be selected, prioritising them or, conversely, deciding to de-list them due to the high risk of post-LT futile transplant. Lastly, models based on the concept of "benefit", namely the balancing between priority and utility, have been recently created. The present review aims to examine these three different types of scoring systems, trying to underline their pro and cons in the allocation process of HCC patients.
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.