Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30813151›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2019

Systematic review of treatment strategy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: Salvage liver transplantation or curative locoregional therapy.

Hong-Liang Wang, Dun-Chang Mo, Jian-Hong Zhong, Liang Ma, Fei-Xiang Wu, Bang-De Xiang, Le-Qun Li

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hong-Liang WangDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University.
Dun-Chang MoDepartment of Radiotherapy, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University.
Jian-Hong ZhongDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University.
Liang MaDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University.
Fei-Xiang WuDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University.
Bang-De XiangDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University.
Le-Qun LiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University.
Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University · CNGuangxi Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe aim of our systematic review was to compare the efficacy of salvage liver transplantation (SLT) versus curative locoregional therapy (CLRT) for patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

methodsStudies comparing the SLT with CLRT for patients with recurrent HCC were selected from database of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library. The outcomes including overall survival, disease-free survival, and complications were abstracted. Individual and pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval of each outcome was analyzed.

resultsSeven retrospective studies involving 840 patients were included. There is no difference between SLT and CLRT group regarding the1- and 3-year overall survival rates. However, the 5-year overall survival and 1-, 3-, 5-year disease-free survival were significantly higher after SLT than after CLRT (OR = 1.62, 95% CI 1.09-2.39, P = .02; OR = 4.08, 95% CI 1.95-8.54, P = .0002; OR = 3.63, 95% CI 2.21-5.95, P <.00001; OR = 5.71, 95% CI 2.63-12.42, P <.0001, respectively). But CLRT was associated with fewer complications and shorter hospital-stay compared with SLT. For SLT compared with repeat hepatectomy (RH), the subgroup analysis indicated that SLT group had a significantly higher 3- and 5-years disease-free survival than the RH group (OR = 3.23, 95% CI 1.45-7.20, P = .004; OR = 4.79, 95% CI 1.88-12.25, P = .001, respectively).

conclusionThe efficacy of SLT may be superior to that of CLRT in the treatment of recurrent HCC. However, considering the similar overall survival rate and current situation of donor shortage, RH is still an important option for recurrence HCC.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularFemaleHepatectomyHumansLength of StayLiver NeoplasmsLiver TransplantationMaleNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPostoperative ComplicationsSalvage TherapySurvival RateTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID30813151
PMCPMC6408068
OpenAlexW2918779258

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.