Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31655492›Full record

ArticleHepatology research : the official journal of the Japan Society of Hepatology2020

Report of the 20th Nationwide follow-up survey of primary liver cancer in Japan.

Masatoshi Kudo, Namiki Izumi, Shoji Kubo, Norihiro Kokudo, Michiie Sakamoto, Shuichiro Shiina, Ryosuke Tateishi, Osamu Nakashima, Takamichi Murakami, Yutaka Matsuyama and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hepatology research : the official journal of the Japan Society of Hepatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 96 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

96 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

36 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

13 authors.

Masatoshi KudoFollow-up Survey Committee, Liver Cancer Study Group of, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4102-3474
Namiki IzumiFollow-up Survey Committee, Liver Cancer Study Group of, Japan.
Shoji KuboFollow-up Survey Committee, Liver Cancer Study Group of, Japan.
Norihiro KokudoFollow-up Survey Committee, Liver Cancer Study Group of, Japan.
Michiie SakamotoFollow-up Survey Committee, Liver Cancer Study Group of, Japan.
Shuichiro ShiinaFollow-up Survey Committee, Liver Cancer Study Group of, Japan.
Ryosuke TateishiFollow-up Survey Committee, Liver Cancer Study Group of, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3021-2517
Osamu NakashimaFollow-up Survey Committee, Liver Cancer Study Group of, Japan.
Takamichi MurakamiFollow-up Survey Committee, Liver Cancer Study Group of, Japan.
Yutaka MatsuyamaFollow-up Survey Committee, Liver Cancer Study Group of, Japan.
Arata TakahashiNational Clinical Database, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroaki MiyataNational Clinical Database, Tokyo, Japan.
Tadatoshi TakayamaFollow-up Survey Committee, Liver Cancer Study Group of, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the 20th Nationwide Follow-up Survey of Primary Liver Cancer in Japan, data from 21 075 new patients and 40 769 previously followed patients were compiled from 544 institutions over a 2-year period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2009. Compared with the previous 19th survey, the population of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was older at the time of clinical diagnosis, included more female patients, included more patients with non-B non-C HCC, had smaller tumor diameters and more frequently received radiofrequency ablation as local ablation therapy. Cumulative survival rates were calculated for HCC, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma (combined HCC and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma) by treatment type and by background characteristics for patients newly registered between 1998 and 2009 whose final outcome was survival or death. Cumulative survival rates for HCC were calculated by dividing patients by combinations of background factors (number of tumors, tumor diameter, and Child-Pugh grade) and by treatment types (hepatectomy, local ablation therapy, and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization). Cumulative survival rates and median overall survival in patients treated by resection, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, and local ablation therapy were calculated. The same values were also calculated by the registration date by dividing patients newly registered between 1978 and 2009 into four time period groups . The results of the analysis show that the prognosis of HCC is improving dramatically. It is expected that the data obtained from this nationwide follow-up survey will contribute to advancing clinical research, including the design of clinical trials, as well as the treatment strategy of primary liver cancer in the clinical practice setting.

Indexed as

combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinomacumulative survival ratehepatocellular carcinomaintrahepatic cholangiocarcinomaLiver Cancer Study Group of Japannationwide follow-up survey

Identifiers

PMID31655492
PMCPMC7003938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.