Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32108433›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2020

Treatment optimization for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: Repeat hepatic resection versus radiofrequency ablation.

Liang-He Lu, Jie Mei, Anna Kan, Yi-Hong Ling, Shao-Hua Li, Wei Wei, Min-Shan Chen, Yong-Fa Zhang, Rong-Ping Guo

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. LaparoscopicTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Repeat resection versus percutaneous ablation for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Liang-He LuDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Jie MeiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Anna KanDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Yi-Hong LingState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangzhou, China.
Shao-Hua LiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Wei WeiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Min-Shan ChenDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Yong-Fa ZhangDepartment of Hepatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Rong-Ping GuoDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2799-3463
Sun Yat-sen University · CNShanghai Medical College of Fudan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsThe optimal treatment strategy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare the outcomes of repeat hepatic resection (RHR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for recurrent HCC.

methodFrom December 2004 to December 2015, 138 patients who underwent RHR and 194 patients who underwent RFA were enrolled. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to establish 1:1 RHR-RFA group matching. Clinical outcomes were compared before and after matching.

resultsBefore matching, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year postrecurrence survival (PRS) rates were 91.8%, 82.0%, and 72.9% for the RHR group (n = 138) and 94.4%, 75.4%, and 61.7% for the RFA group (n = 194), respectively (P = .380). After matching, the PRS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 90.5%, 81.5%, and 71.8% for the RHR group (n = 120) and 91.0%, 61.0%, and 41.7% for the RFA group (n = 120), respectively (P = .002). In the subgroup analysis, the PRS rates for the RHR group were better than those for the RFA group for patients who relapsed within 2 years (P = .004) or patients with primary tumor burden beyond the Milan criteria (P = .004). Multivariate analysis showed that treatment allocation was identified as an independent prognostic factor for PRS.

conclusionCompared with RFA, RHR provided a survival advantage for recurrent HCC, especially for patients who relapsed within 2 years and those with primary tumor burden beyond the Milan criteria.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHepatectomyHumansLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRadiofrequency AblationRetrospective StudiesSurvival Ratepostrecurrence survivalradiofrequency ablationrecurrent hepatocellular carcinomarepeat hepatic resection

Identifiers

PMID32108433
PMCPMC7196061
OpenAlexW3007535308

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.