Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33549093›Full record

ReviewCancer cell international2021

The effects of several postoperative adjuvant therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma patients with microvascular invasion after curative resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jiarui Yang, Hao Liang, Kunpeng Hu, Zhiyong Xiong, Mingbo Cao, Zhaozhong Zhong, Zhicheng Yao, Meihai Deng

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer cell international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jiarui Yang *Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, No. 600, Tianhe Road, Guangzhou, 510530, Guangdong, China.
Hao LiangDepartment of General Surgery, Ling Nan Hospital, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, No. 2693, Kai Chuang Avenue, Guangzhou, 510530, Guangdong, China.
Kunpeng HuDepartment of General Surgery, Ling Nan Hospital, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, No. 2693, Kai Chuang Avenue, Guangzhou, 510530, Guangdong, China.
Zhiyong XiongDepartment of General Surgery, Ling Nan Hospital, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, No. 2693, Kai Chuang Avenue, Guangzhou, 510530, Guangdong, China.
Mingbo CaoDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, No. 600, Tianhe Road, Guangzhou, 510530, Guangdong, China.
Zhaozhong ZhongDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, No. 600, Tianhe Road, Guangzhou, 510530, Guangdong, China.
Zhicheng YaoDepartment of General Surgery, Ling Nan Hospital, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, No. 2693, Kai Chuang Avenue, Guangzhou, 510530, Guangdong, China. yaozhch2@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Meihai DengDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, No. 600, Tianhe Road, Guangzhou, 510530, Guangdong, China. dengmeih@mail.sysu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8495-3885
Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

Medical Research Foundation of Guangdong Province A2016312National Natural Science Foundation of China 81572726Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China 2016A030313200Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China 2016A030313848Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China 2018A030313641Science and Technology Project of Guangzhou City, China 201704020175the National Natural Science Foundation of China 81702375the Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangzhou city 201804010211
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with microvascular invasion (MVI) after curative resection, the effects of various postoperative adjuvant therapies are not summarized in detail, and the comparison between the effects of various adjuvant therapies is still unclear. Thus, we collected existing studies on postoperative adjuvant therapies for patients with HCC with MVI after curative resection and analyzed the effects of various adjuvant therapies.

methodWe collected all studies on postoperative adjuvant therapy for patients with HCC with MVI after curative resection from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and SinoMed ending on May 1, 2019. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free/recurrence-free survival (RFS) between each group were compared in these studies by calculating the pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). All statistical analyses were assessed by two authors independently.

resultA total of 13 studies were included in this study, including 824 postoperative adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization (pa-TACE) patients, 90 postoperative radiotherapy patients, 57 radiofrequency ablation (RFA)/re-resection patients, 16 sorafenib patients and 886 postoperative conservative treatment patients. The results showed that pa-TACE significantly improved OS and RFS compared with postoperative conservative treatment in patients with HCC with MVI after curative resection (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55-0.74, p < 0.001; HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.62-0.78, p < 0.001, respectively). There was no significant difference in OS between pa-TACE and radiotherapy in patients with HCC with MVI (HR: 1.75, 95% CI: 0.92-3.32, p = 0.087). RFS in patients with HCC with MVI after pa-TACE was worse than that after postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy (HR: 2.29, 95% CI: 1.43-3.65, p < 0.001). The prognosis of pa-TACE and RFA/re-resection in patients with MVI with recurrent HCC had no significant differences (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.09-4.89, p = 0.671). Adjuvant treatments significantly improved the OS and RFS of patients compared with the postoperative conservative group (HR: 0.580, 95% CI: 0.480-0.710, p < 0.001; HR: 0.630, 95% CI: 0.540-0.740, p < 0.001, respectively).

conclusionCompared with postoperative conservative treatment, pa-TACE, postoperative radiotherapy and sorafenib can improve the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with microvascular invasion after curative resection. Postoperative radiotherapy can reduce the recurrence of patients with HCC with MVI after curative resection compared with pa-TACE.

Indexed as

Hepatocellular carcinomaMicrovascular invasionPostoperative adjuvant transarterial chemoembolizationPostoperative radiotherapyPrognosisRadiofrequency ablationRe-resectionSorafenib

Identifiers

PMID33549093
PMCPMC7868028
OpenAlexW3127087492

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.