ArticleScientific reports2024
Hepatocellular carcinoma outcomes and potential implications for surveillance in elderly patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
International liver societies recommend hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance for those at high-risk of developing HCC. While previous studies have shown the benefits of surveillance for middle-aged patients, but its necessity for elderly patients is unclear. This study aimed to assess the benefits of HCC surveillance in the elderly by comparing diagnosis mode of HCC. Consecutive, elderly patients aged 75 years or older who were newly diagnosed with HCC were screened at our institution between January 2009 and December 2021. Patients were grouped into those who were diagnosed with HCC during surveillance (n = 235, surveillance group) and those who were diagnosed with HCC due to symptoms (n = 184, symptomatic group). The study outcome was overall survival. It was compared in the overall cohort and a propensity score (PS)-matched cohort. Early-stage diagnosis was more frequent in the surveillance group than in the symptomatic group (mUICC stage I/II: 72.3% vs. 39.1%, p < 0.001). The overall survival rate was better in the surveillance group than in the symptomatic group (median 4.4 vs. 2.1 years, log-rank p < 0.001). In multivariable-adjusted models, the hazard ratio (HR) of mortality of the surveillance group compared to the symptomatic group was 0.64 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47-0.87). However, further adjustment for the tumor stage markedly attenuated this association, which was no longer statistically significant (adjusted HR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.54-1.02). In the PS-matched cohort analysis, outcomes were similar when the PS matching variables included the tumor stage. In contrast, when PS matching variables did not include the tumor stage, outcomes were better for the surveillance group. The surveillance group of elderly patients showed better survival than the symptomatic group, which was largely explained by earlier tumor stage at diagnosis. This suggests that the overall outcome of elderly HCC patients could be improved by increasing surveillance-detected cases compared to symptom-driven cases.
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.