ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2022
Evaluating the best treatment for multifocal hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transarterial chemoembolization with radioactive seed implantation for multitumor hepatocellular carcinoma.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting postoperative survival in patients with multifocal hepatocellular carcinoma.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Prognostic value of preoperative fibrinogen, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, serum alpha-fetoprotein, and prealbumin for patients with primary liver cancer undergoing transarterial chemoembolization.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Transarterial chemoembolization withFrontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Imaging prognostication and tumor biology in hepatocellular carcinoma.Journal of liver cancer · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common tumour often diagnosed with a multifocal presentation. Patients with multifocal HCC represent a heterogeneous group. Although Trans-Arterial ChemoEmbolization (TACE) is the most frequently employed treatment for these patients, previous data suggested that liver resection (LR) could be a safe and effective procedure.
aimTo compare LR and TACE in patients with multifocal HCC in terms of procedure-related morbidity and oncologic outcomes.
methodsAll patients with multifocal HCC who underwent LR or TACE as the first procedure between May 2011 and March 2021 were enrolled. The decision to perform surgery or TACE was made after a multidisciplinary team evaluation. Only patients in Child-Pugh class A or B7 and stage B (according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system, without severe portal hypertension, vascular invasion, or extrahepatic spread) were included in the final analysis. Propensity score matching was used to adjust the baseline differences between patients undergoing LR and the TACE group [number and diameter of lesions, presence of cirrhosis, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score]. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The outcomes of LR and TACE were compared using the log-rank test.
resultsAfter matching, 30 patients were eligible for the final analysis, 15 in each group. Morbidity rates were 42.9% and 40% for LR and TACE, respectively (
conclusionIn a small cohort of patients with multifocal HCC, LR confers longer DFS compared with TACE, with similar OS and post-procedural morbidity.
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.