ReviewCancers2022
Meta-Analysis of Repeat Hepatectomy versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Recurrence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic repeat hepatectomy for recurrent liver tumors: a systematic review of contemporary evidence and technical strategies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Taiwan Academy of Tumor Ablation (TATA) consensus on hepatocellular carcinoma ablation.Hepatology international · 2026Article
- Outcomes of robotic liver resection and intraoperative radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma in posterior segments VII and VIII.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Radiofrequency ablation for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: 10-year outcomes of local tumor progression vs intrahepatic distant recurrence.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Article
- Efficacy and prognostic impact of preoperative risk factors for salvage liver transplantation and repeat hepatectomy in patients with early-stage recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes Between Repeated Hepatic Resection and Radiofrequency Ablation in Patients with Small Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Initial Curative Resection: A Propensity Score Matched Study.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2025Article
- Impact of Liver Fibrosis Severity on Oncological Prognosis in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Liver cancer · 2024Article
- Review
- Review
- Third Liver Resection for Re-recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Assessment of the Prognostic Factors of Long-term Survival.Cancer diagnosis & prognosisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary hepatic malignancy and a leading cause of cancer-related death in both the developed and developing world. Recurrent HCC (rHCC) develops in a significant proportion of patients even following curative-intent resection. In the absence of a structured treatment algorithm, a number of treatment options including repeat hepatectomy (RH) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have been utilized in select patients with rHCC. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing RHR versus RFA for rHCC. Four electronic databases were screened until September 2022. A total of 17 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Overall and disease-free survival were comparable among the two groups. Patients undergoing RH were less likely to develop a second recurrence (RR 0.89, 95% C.I. 0.81 to 0.98, p = 0.02). Overall and major morbidity were significantly increased in the RH group (RR 3.01, 95% C.I. 1.98 to 4.56, p < 0.001 and RR 3.65, 95% C.I. 2.07 to 6.43, p < 0.001, respectively), while mortality was similar between RFA and RH. The data demonstrated that RFA is a safe and efficient alternative to RH for selected patients with rHCC. Nevertheless, despite higher morbidity associated with RH, repeat resection remains the preferred treatment option whenever feasible, as it allows for better local disease control.
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.