ArticleBMC surgery2019
Comparison of open liver resection and RFA for the treatment of solitary 3-5-cmhepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Competing risk analysis of surgical resectionTranslational cancer research · 2025Article
- Assessing the Validity of the AASLD Surgical Treatment Algorithm in Patients with Early-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Gut and liver · 2025Article
- Overall survival is comparable between percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and liver resection as first-line therapies for solitary 3-5 cm hepatocellular carcinoma.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- Pinpointing the integration of artificial intelligence in liver cancer immune microenvironment.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Surgical therapy and survival in young patients with stage I-II hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study.Translational cancer research · 2022Article
- Do Elderly Patients With Stage I-II Hepatocellular Carcinoma Benefit From More Radical Surgeries? A Population-Based 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe goal of this study was to compare the postoperative results of liver resection and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (3-5 cm). PATIENTS AND
methodsWe retrospectively collected 122 cases of small solitary HCC treated at our center from Jan 2011 to Dec 2015, with diameters in the range of 3-5 cm. According to the treatment program received at our center, the patients were divided into liver resection (72 patients) and RFA (50 patients) groups.
resultIn comparison with the RFA group, the resection group had a longer operative time, greater intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.01), more hepatic inflow occlusion, and a longer postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.01). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year expected overall survival rates and tumor-free survival rates were comparable between the two groups. Cox regression analysis showed that neither resection nor RFA was a significant risk factor for overall or tumor-free survival in HCC.
conclusionsFor solitary HCC of 3-5 cm in diameter, RFA can achieve better in-hospital clinical results and similar long-term outcomes than resection and can be considered for wide application, especially for central-location cases.
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.