ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023
Radiofrequency ablation versus liver resection and liver transplantation for small combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma stratified by tumor size.
Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Updated Review of Combined Hepatocellular Cholangiocarcinoma: A Rare and Poorly Understood Neoplasm.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Spectral CT quantitative parameters for predicting complete ablation after radiofrequency ablation in liver tumors: a retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Radiologic and Pathologic Insights in Combined Hepatocellular-Cholangiocarcinoma: A Report of Three Cases.Reports (MDPI) · 2025Article
- Overall Survival and Complication Rates in the Treatment of Liver Carcinoma: A Comparative Study of Ultrasound, Computed Tomography, and Combined Ultrasound and Computed Tomography Guidance for Radiofrequency Ablation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Competing risk analysis of surgical resectionTranslational cancer research · 2025Article
- Liver transplantation for combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma: Current evidence, selection criteria, and therapeutic controversies.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- Tumor burden score combined with AFP and PIVKA-II (TAP score) to predict the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma patients after radical liver resection.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- Update on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Combined Hepatocellular Cholangiocarcinoma.Journal of clinical and translational hepatology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been proven to provide a good survival benefit for small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), there is limited information about RFA for combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC). The purpose of this study was to explore the clinicopathological features of cHCC-CC and the curative effect of RFA in small cHCC-CC without distant metastases compared with liver resection (LR) and liver transplantation (LT).
methodsPatients with cHCC-CC, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, or HCC were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.
resultscHCC-CC had the highest rate of poor pathological grade and the lowest rate of bone metastases compared with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and HCC (all P < 0.05). In patients with cHCC-CC after surgery, multivariate analysis showed that compared with RFA, LR and LT were independent protective factors for survival (all P < 0.05). But in cHCC-CC stratified by tumor size, for tumor size ≤ 3.0 cm, there was no significant difference among RFA, LR, and LT in univariate survival analysis (P = 0.285). For tumor size 3.0-5.0 cm, multivariate analysis showed that RFA for cHCC-CC yielded worse survival outcomes in comparison with that of LR (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.09-26.94, P = 0.002) and LT (HR: 4.48, 95% CI: 1.20-16.64, P = 0.025).
conclusionsIn patients with cHCC-CC without distant metastases, for tumor size ≤ 3.0 cm, there was no significant survival difference among RFA, LR, and LT. However, for tumor size 3.0-5.0 cm, RFA may provide a worse survival benefit than LT and LR.
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.