ArticleBMC cancer2019
The short-term efficacy of no-touch radiofrequency ablation in treating cirrhosis-based small hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in BMC cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- No-Touch vs. Conventional Radiofrequency Ablation Using Twin Internally Cooled Wet Electrodes for Small Hepatocellular Carcinomas: A Randomized Prospective Comparative Study.Korean journal of radiology · 2021Trial
- Long-Term Outcome of No-Touch Radiofrequency Ablation for Treating AFP-Positive Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2026Article
- No-Touch Radiofrequency Ablation Using Twin Cooled Wet Electrodes for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma Following Locoregional Treatments.Korean journal of radiology · 2024Article
- No-Touch Radiofrequency Ablation for Early Hepatocellular Carcinoma: 2023 Korean Society of Image-Guided Tumor Ablation Guidelines.Korean journal of radiology · 2023Review
- Perivascular vital cells in the ablation center after multibipolar radiofrequency ablation in an in vivo porcine model.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Current updates in machine learning in the prediction of therapeutic outcome of hepatocellular carcinoma: what should we know?Insights into imaging · 2021Review
- Switching Monopolar No-Touch Radiofrequency Ablation Using Octopus Electrodes for Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Liver cancer · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRadiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has a drawback of high recurrence rate. No-touch technique was developed to overcome it. However, it has barely been studied in Chinese populations. The aim of this study is to determine the safety and efficacy of no-touch RFA in the treatment of cirrhosis-based small HCC patients.
methodsA total of 130 patients of small HCC in Southwest Hospital were enrolled in this study, 46 cases treated by no-touch RFA and 84 cases by conventional RFA. Treatment complications and tumor-free survival rate and overall survival rate were compared and analyzed.
resultsThere were no significant differences in baseline confounding factors between the two groups. The ablation volume of no-touch RFA technique was significantly higher than conventional RFA (P = 0.002) but the remaining liver volume and treatment complications of the two techniques were the same (P = 0.702 and P = 0.269, respectively). Cox regression model revealed that conventional RFA was a predictive factor for short-term HCC recurrence (P = 0.041 for 2-year recurrence rate). Kaplan-Meier survival showed that tumor-free survival in no-touch group was significantly higher than conventional group (P = 0.047).
conclusionsOur data showed that no-touch RFA provided a higher short-term tumor-free survival rate than conventional RFA but was as safe as conventional RFA.
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.