ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2020
Differences in Survival Between First-Line Radiofrequency Ablation versus Surgery for Early-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Population Study Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The first-line therapy for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is unclear. This study was conducted to assess and compare survival after surgery vs. after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for early-stage HCC. MATERIAL AND METHODS Data from HCC patients with a single tumor measuring 31-50 mm were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2004 to 2015. Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were assessed and compared between surgery and RFA treatment. Propensity score matching was performed. Multiple imputations were used to create 5 sets of complete data. Fine and Gray competing risk multivariate regression models were used to control biases. RESULTS This study included 839 patients: 339 (40.41%) received RFA and 500 (59.59%) underwent surgery. Surgery improved the 5-year OS (63.95% vs. 37.13%, p<0.01) and CSS (64.01% vs. 38.29%, p<0.01) compared with RFA after propensity score matching. The competing risk regression models revealed that, compared with RFA, surgery resulted in better survival in the unmatched cohort with an adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratio of 0.689 (95% confident interval [CI], 0.562-0.868; p=0.001) and in the propensity-matched cohort with an adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratio of 0.642 (95% CI, 0.514-0.801; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Surgery appears to be a better therapy choice than RFA for patients with early-stage HCC with a single tumor measuring 31-50 mm.
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.