ReviewClinical and molecular hepatology2019
Direct-acting antivirals response in hepatocellular carcinoma: Does the presence of hepatocellular carcinoma matter?
Review in Clinical and molecular hepatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the efficacy and safety of direct-acting antiviral therapy with or without hepatitis C-related hepatocellular carcinoma.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Unmet needs of chronic hepatitis C in the era of direct-acting antiviral therapy.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2020Review
- Eradication of Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Improves Survival of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients with Active HCV Infection - A Real-World Cohort Study.Cancer management and research · 2020Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the clinical trial development of directly acting antivirals (DAAs), evidence regarding the treatment efficacy in chronic hepatitis C patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was scarce because these patients have always been excluded. Apart from the clinical trials, more HCC patients are currently being treated in daily practice, given that these treatments are highly effective and involve well-tolerated regimens. Large scale, real-world studies have demonstrated potentially suboptimal antiviral treatment efficacy in HCC patients who received DAAs. It is postulated that the impairment of the bioavailability of DAAs may account for the inferior treatment response. However, the results could not be generalized across all studies. The differing results were attributed to diverse patient characteristics, suboptimal regimens or imprecise definitions of active cancer statuses at the time of treatment initiation. Additional large-scale studies that utilize the treatment of choice in clearly defined HCC patients with different disease severities are warranted to clarify the issue.
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.