Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31312946›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgery2019

Perioperative Allogeneic Blood Transfusion Does not Influence Patient Survival After Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Yo-Ichi Yamashita, Hiromitsu Hayashi, Katsunori Imai, Hirohisa Okabe, Shigeki Nakagawa, Fumimasa Kitamura, Norio Uemura, Yosuke Nakao, Toshihiko Yusa, Rumi Itoyama and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yo-Ichi YamashitaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan. y-yama@kumamoto-u.ac.jp.
Hiromitsu HayashiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Katsunori ImaiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Hirohisa OkabeDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Shigeki NakagawaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Fumimasa KitamuraDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Norio UemuraDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Yosuke NakaoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Toshihiko YusaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Rumi ItoyamaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Takanobu YamaoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Naoki UmesakiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Tatsunori MiyataDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Akira ChikamotoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Mototsugu ShimokawaClinical Research Institute, National Kyushu Cancer Center, 3-1-1 Notame, Minami-ku, Fukuoka, 811-1395, Japan.
Hideo BabaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Kumamoto University · JPNational Hospital Organization Kyushu Cancer Center · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhether perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion (PABT) negatively influences patient survival after hepatectomy (HR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial.

methodsFive hundred two patients who underwent HR for initial HCC between 1994 and 2015 were enrolled in this study. All patients were divided into two groups: the PABT group and the non-PABT group. Differences of clinicopathological factors, overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and the recurrence pattern between the two groups were evaluated. Using propensity score matching for tumor-related factors, liver functions, and surgical factors (total 11 factors), the survival impact of PABT was also analyzed.

resultsIn the entire cohort, 78 patients (15.5%) received PABT such as red cell concentrate, fresh-frozen plasma, or platelets. OS (5-year OS: 55% vs. 76%; p = 0.0005) and RFS (2-year RFS: 47% vs. 56%; p = 0.0131) were significantly worse in the PABT group. The extrahepatic recurrence happened more frequently in the PABT group (15% vs. 5.4%; p = 0.0039). There were many significant clinicopathological differences between the two groups: more advanced tumor stage (tumor diameter, stage III or IV, microvascular invasion), worse liver functions (albumin, indocyanine green retention rate at 15 min), and more surgical stress (blood loss, operation time) in the PABT group. After propensity score matching, 43 pairs of patients were extracted. In this matched cohort, the survival curves of the PABT and non-PABT groups almost completely overlapped both in OS (5-year OS: 62% vs. 62%; p = 0.4384) and in RFS (2-year RFS: 49% vs. 47%; p = 0.8195). The significant difference of the extrahepatic recurrence rate disappeared in the matched cohort (p = 0.5789).

conclusionUsing propensity score matching, we found that PABT does not influence patient survival after HR for HCC.

Indexed as

Erythrocyte TransfusionNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPlasmaPlatelet TransfusionAgedAllogeneic CellsCarcinoma, HepatocellularFemaleHepatectomyHumansLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingOperative TimePerioperative Care

Identifiers

PMID31312946
OpenAlexW2957411897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.