ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2020
Validation of prognostic accuracy of MESH, HKLC, and BCLC classifications in a large German cohort of hepatocellular carcinoma patients.
Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2020. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metabolic burden-based clinical-radiological model for predicting postoperative recurrence of hepatitis B-related hepatocellular carcinoma.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Is hepatic resection always a better choice than radiofrequency ablation for solitary hepatocellular carcinoma regardless of age and tumor size?Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2023Article
- Review
- How to Treat Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Elderly Patients.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Key Enzymes in Pyrimidine Synthesis, CAD and CPS1, Predict Prognosis in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Cancers · 2021Article
- Predictive scores for hepatocellular carcinoma: a race with no winners?Annals of translational medicine · 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
13 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimThe Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system is commonly used to classify hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. However, other staging classification schemes have been proposed. We aimed to compare the prognostic accuracy of the Hong Kong Liver Cancer Staging (HKLC), the Model to Estimate Survival for HCC (MESH), and the BCLC staging systems using a Western cohort of HCC patients.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 918 patients diagnosed with HCC treated at the University Medical Center of Mainz between 2005 and 2014. We compared the predictive power of survival time of the BCLC, HKLC, and MESH. Predictive ability was tested using the integrated Brier score (IBS) and Harrell's C index.
resultsKaplan-Meier analyses showed significant differences in survival between stages defined by the BCLC, HKLC, and MESH. The HKLC classification demonstrated a more robust classification concordance and lower prediction error compared to the BCLC and MESH. In addition, we found that the BCLC offers superior predictive ability to the MESH in the first four years, whereas the MESH is superior for long-term predictions.
conclusionOur analyses confirm the prognostic value of three different HCC scoring systems. When compared, the HKLC provides superior prognostication ability.
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.