Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34515782›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Development and Validation of a Model Including Distinct Vascular Patterns to Estimate Survival in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Wen-Ping Lin, Kai-Li Xing, Jian-Chang Fu, Yi-Hong Ling, Shao-Hua Li, Wu-Shen Yu, Yong-Fa Zhang, Chong Zhong, Jia-Hong Wang, Zhi-Yuan Chen and 3 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

43 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Preliminary study on the ability ofQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

13 authors.

Wen-Ping LinDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Kai-Li XingState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Jian-Chang FuState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Yi-Hong LingState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Shao-Hua LiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Wu-Shen YuDepartment of General Surgery, Dongguan People's Hospital, Southern Medical University, Dongguan City, China.
Yong-Fa ZhangDepartment of Hepatic Surgery, Fudan University, Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Chong ZhongDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Jia-Hong WangDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, Affiliated Cancer Hospital and Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhi-Yuan ChenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hunan Provincial People's Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Human Normal University, Changsha, China.
Liang-He LuDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Wei WeiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Rong-Ping GuoDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Because of tumor heterogeneity, traditional clinical variables remain insufficient to predict recurrence, which impairs long-term survival among patients undergoing radical hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Vessels encapsulating tumor clusters (VETC) constitute a novel vascular pattern distinct from microvascular invasion (MVI), representing biological aggressiveness of HCC. Objective: To establish a model to estimate individualized recurrence-free survival (RFS) in HCC by integrating VETC and MVI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study included 498 patients undergoing radical hepatectomy for HCC from 5 academic centers in China from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016, and consisted of 3 cohorts: training (243 [48.8%]), internal validation (122 [24.5%]), and external validation (133 [26.7%]). Follow-up was completed on March 30, 2020, and the data were analyzed from December 1 to 31, 2020. Exposures: VETC, MVI, tumor number, and maximum tumor size. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was RFS. The risk score for relative recurrence and nomogram for absolute RFS probability were derived from the final model, which contained variables recommended by multivariate least absolute shrinkage and selection operator Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Their performance was quantified using the Harrell concordance index (C index), the time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and calibration curves and was compared with 6 prognostic systems. Recurrence-free survival was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and RFS curves were compared using a log-rank test. Results: Among the 498 patients, 432 (86.7%) were men; the mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 51.4 (11.3) years. Independent predictors for RFS identified included VETC, MVI, tumor number, and maximum tumor size, which were incorporated into the multivariate model (VMNS model). The C index (0.702; 95% CI, 0.653-0.752) for the VMNS score of the training cohort was significantly higher than those of 6 conventional systems (0.587 [95% CI, 0.535-0.638] to 0.657 [95% CI, 0.606-0.708]). Different recurrence risk groups defined by the VMNS score showed significantly different 2-year RFS (low-risk group, 81.4% [SE, 0.036]; medium-risk group, 62.1% [SE, 0.054]; high-risk group, 30.1% [SE, 0.079]; P < .001). Calibration curves of the VMNS nomogram showed good agreement between the nomogram-predicted RFS probability and actual RFS proportion. The internal and external validation cohorts confirmed the results. Conclusions and Relevance: The VMNS model enabled individualized prognostication of RFS in patients with HCC undergoing curative resection.

Indexed as

NomogramsCarcinoma, HepatocellularChinaFemaleHepatectomyHumansLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeovascularization, PathologicPostoperative PeriodPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID34515782
PMCPMC8438596

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.