ArticlePloS one2020
Continued value of the serum alpha-fetoprotein test in surveilling at-risk populations for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS AND
aimsBecause of the known limitations of ultrasonography (US) alone, we re-evaluated whether complimentary testing for serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) is helpful in surveilling for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk populations.
methodsWe included, from a hospital-based cancer registry, 1,776 asymptomatic adults who were surveilled biannually with the AFP test and US and eventually diagnosed with HCC between 2007 and 2015. Based on the screening results, these patients were divided into three groups: AFP (positive for AFP only; n = 298 [16.8%]), US (positive for US only; n = 978 [55.0%]), and AFP+US (positive for both; n = 500 [28.2%]). We compared the outcomes of the three groups, calculating the survival of the AFP group both as observed survival and as survival corrected for lead-time.
resultsIn terms of tumor-related factors, the separate AFP and US groups were more likely to have early stage HCC and to receive curative treatments than the combined AFP+US group (Ps<0.05). The AFP group had significantly better overall and cancer-specific survival than the AFP+US group after adjusting for covariates (adjusted hazard ratios [HRs] 0.68 and 0.62, respectively). In analyses correcting for lead-time in the AFP group (doubling time 120 days), the respective adjusted HRs for the AFP group were unchanged (0.74 and 0.67), but they were no longer significant after additional adjustment for tumor stage and curative treatment (0.87 and 0.81).
conclusionsHCC cases detected by the AFP test without abnormal ultrasonic findings appear to have better survival, possibly as a result of stage migration and the resulting cures. Complementary AFP surveillance, together with US, could be helpful for at-risk patients.
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.