ArticleCurrent medical science2022
Prognosis of Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Terms of Different Criteria: A Single Center Experience.
Article in Current medical science, 2022. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePatients undergoing liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) within the Milan criteria have an excellent outcome. We developed a program to analyze and prove that the Milan criteria can be expanded safely and effectively.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 117 HCC patients treated with liver transplantation between January 2013 and December 2017. Patients were grouped according to the Milan criteria, the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) criteria, Up-to-seven criteria and Hangzhou criteria. Tumor-free and overall survival rates were investigated with a Kaplan-Meier analysis. Multivariable regression Cox models produced survival estimates for the patients that exceeded the Milan criteria.
resultsThe 1-year, 3-year and 5-year overall survival rates of patients fulfilling the Milan criteria (n=44) were 100%, 87.5% and 78.9%, respectively. Compared with the Milan criteria, the UCSF criteria (n=50), Up-to-seven criteria (n=51) and Hangzhou criteria (n=86) provided an expansion of 13.6%, 15.9% and 95.9%, respectively. The 1-year, 3-year and 5-year overall survival rates of patients fulfilling UCSF criteria, Up-to-seven criteria and Hangzhou criteria were 96.0%, 84.9%, 76.9%; 96.1%, 85.2%, 77.6% and 97.7%, 83.9%, 66.7%, respectively (P>0.05). Multifactor Cox regression showed that tumor diameter and microvascular invasion were independent risk factors for survival in patients that exceeded the Milan criteria.
conclusionCompared with the Milan criteria, the Hangzhou criteria can safely expand the scope of liver transplantation for HCC to a certain extent. By contrast, the UCSF criteria and Up-to-seven criteria result in a limited number of patients which need further expansion. Tumor diameter and microvascular invasion were the independent risk factors for survival in patients that exceeded the Milan criteria.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35391617What 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.