ArticleClinical and translational gastroenterology2019
Selection Between Liver Resection Versus Transarterial Chemoembolization in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Study.
Article in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Primary treatments for solitary hepatocellular carcinoma ≤ 3 cm: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2024Review
- Prognostic nomogram model for selecting between transarterial chemoembolization plus lenvatinib, with and without PD-1 inhibitor in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.The British journal of radiology · 2024Article
- A Review of the Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Abdominal Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Associations Between Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms of Hypoxia-Related Genes and Capsule Formation in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2023Article
- Radiomics/Radiogenomics in hepatocellular carcinoma: Applications and challenges in interventional management.iLIVER · 2022Review
- Impact of ultrasonographic blind spots for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma during surveillance.PloS one · 2022Article
- Multi-task deep learning network to predict future macrovascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma.EClinicalMedicine · 2021Article
- Radiomics in hepatocellular carcinoma: A state-of-the-art review.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Review
- Deep Learning-Based Prediction of Future Extrahepatic Metastasis and Macrovascular Invasion in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2021Article
- Radiomics in liver diseases: Current progress and future opportunities.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2020Review
- Identification of Predominant Histopathological Growth Patterns of Colorectal Liver Metastasis by Multi-Habitat and Multi-Sequence Based Radiomics Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesModels should be developed to assist choice between liver resection (LR) and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma.
methodsAfter separating 520 cases from 5 hospitals into training (n = 302) and validation (n = 218) data sets, we weighted the cases to control baseline difference and ensured the causal effect between treatments (LR and TACE) and estimated progression-free survival (PFS) difference. A noninvasive PFS model was constructed with clinical factors, radiological characteristics, and radiomic features. We compared our model with other 4 state-of-the-art models. Finally, patients were classified into subgroups with and without significant PFS difference between treatments.
resultsOur model included treatments, age, sex, modified Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage, fusion lesions, hepatocellular carcinoma capsule, and 3 radiomic features, with good discrimination and calibrations (area under the curve for 3-year PFS was 0.80 in the training data set and 0.75 in the validation data set; similar results were achieved in 1- and 2-year PFS). The model had better accuracy than the other 4 models. A nomogram was built, with different scores assigned for LR and TACE. Separated by the threshold of score difference between treatments, for some patients, LR provided longer PFS and might be the better option (training: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.50, P = 0.014; validation: HR = 0.52, P = 0.026); in the others, LR provided similar PFS with TACE (training: HR = 0.84, P = 0.388; validation: HR = 1.14, P = 0.614). TACE may be better because it was less invasive. DISCUSSION: We propose an individualized model predicting PFS difference between LR and TACE to assist in the optimal treatment choice.
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.