ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2020
Milan criteria in the MELD era-is it justifiable to extend the limits for orthotopic liver transplantation?
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combining tissue-derived microRNAs with clinical risk models for prediction of HCC recurrence after liver transplantation: A proof-of-concept study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Induced myocardial ischemia in candidates to liver transplantation without evidence of heart disease.Annals of medicine · 2023Article
- The Landscape Of Alpha Fetoprotein In Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Where Are We?International journal of biological sciences · 2022Review
- Nutritional therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Milan criteria (MC) are widely used for the indication of liver transplantation (LTx) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Good long-term results have also been reported following LTx for patients exceeding the MC. In this article, we compare the overall and recurrence-free survival of our patients fulfilling and exceeding the MC according to the post-transplant histopathological results. PATIENTS AND
methodsData from 120 patients with HCC (22 females and 98 males) were analyzed. The median patient age was 61 years (Q1, Q3 54.7, 65.4), and the median MELD score was 11 (Q1, Q3 8, 15). The median follow-up period was 53 months (Q1, Q3 16.6, 78). Patients were categorized into established criteria (MC, up-to-seven (UTS), Asan criteria, AFP score), and the outcome of the individual groups was compared.
resultsSeventy-four of 120 patients fulfilled the MC, 86 patients met the UTS criteria, 85 patients fulfilled the Asan criteria, and 79 patients had an AFP score less than or equal to 2. The 1- and 5-year survival rates of all patients were 76.7% and 55.6%, respectively. In total, 14.2% of all patients (5.4% of patients who met the MC, 7% of patients who met the UTS criteria, 5.9% of patients who met the Asan criteria, and 6.3% of patients who had an AFP score less than 2) experienced recurrence.
conclusionsThe outcomes of the patients were comparable to those reported in the current literature. In our population, similar recurrence and survival rates of the patients were noted for patients fulfilling the UTS criteria irrespective of fulfilling or exceeding the MC. Consequently, we consider using UTS criteria as the extended criterion for LTx indication.
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.