ArticleEuropean radiology2024
Chemoembolization versus radiofrequency ablation for single small (≤ 3 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis.
Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Segmental versus subsegmental transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for small (< 3 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): Less selective, more effective? A propensity score-matched analysis.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Transarterial-Chemoembolization versus Radiofrequency-Ablation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma within Milan Criteria: A Propensity Score-Matching Study.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the efficacy of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for patients with single small (≤ 3 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and preserved liver function (Child-Pugh class A). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe clinical features of treatment-naïve patients who underwent TACE and RFA as first-line treatment were balanced through propensity score matching (PSM). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints were local tumor recurrence (LTR) and recurrence-free survival (RFS).
resultsThe analysis included 440 patients who received TACE, and 430 patients who received RFA. After PSM adjustment (323 pairs), the 5- and 10-year OS rates were 81% and 61%, respectively, in patients who underwent RFA, and 77% and 51%, respectively, for patients who underwent TACE (p = 0.021). Subgroup analyses showed that OS, LTR, and RFS were homogeneously better in the RFA group.
conclusionRFA was associated with better survival outcomes than TACE in patients with single small HCC and preserved liver function. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This large-scale comparative study provides evidence that radiofrequency ablation has a better overall survival rate than chemoembolization for small (≤ 3 cm) hepatocellular carcinomas. KEY POINTS: • The relative effectiveness of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for early HCC is unclear. • Overall survival rate was significantly higher in the RFA group. • The effects of RFA on overall survival, local tumor recurrence, and recurrence-free survival were homogeneously better in all subgroups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38329504What 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.