Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39254824›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2024

Identification of proliferative hepatocellular carcinoma using the SMARS score and implications for microwave ablation.

Peng Zhou, Yan Bao, De-Hua Chang, Jun-Xiang Li, Tian-Zhi An, Ya-Ping Shen, Wen-Wu Cai, Lu Wen, Yu-Dong Xiao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Peng Zhou *Department of Pathology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, 410011, Changsha, China.
Yan Bao *Department of Radiology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, 410011, Changsha, China.
De-Hua ChangInstitute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cantonal Hospital Lucerne, Spitalstrasse, CH-6000, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Jun-Xiang LiDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Guizhou Medical University Affiliated Cancer Hospital, 550004, Guiyang, China.
Tian-Zhi AnDepartment of Interventional Radiology, The Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, 550004, Guiyang, China.
Ya-Ping ShenDepartment of Interventional Radiology, The Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, 550004, Guiyang, China.
Wen-Wu CaiDepartment of Liver Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, 410011, Changsha, China.
Lu WenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, 410013, Changsha, China.
Yu-Dong XiaoDepartment of Radiology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, 410011, Changsha, China. xiaoyudong222@csu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6815-3447

Funding

Natural Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars of Hunan Province 2024JJ2087
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare therapeutic outcomes of predicted proliferative and nonproliferative hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after microwave ablation (MWA) using a previously developed imaging-based predictive model, the SMARS score.

methodsThis multicenter retrospective study included consecutive 635 patients with unresectable HCC who underwent MWA between August 2013 and September 2020. Patients were stratified into predicted proliferative and nonproliferative phenotypes according to the SMARS score. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared between the predicted proliferative and nonproliferative HCCs before and after propensity score matching (PSM). OS and RFS were also compared between the two groups in subgroups of tumor size smaller than 30 mm and tumor size 30-50 mm.

resultsThe SMARS score classified 127 and 508 patients into predicted proliferative and nonproliferative HCCs, respectively. The predicted proliferative HCCs exhibited worse RFS but equivalent OS when compared with nonproliferative HCCs before (p < 0.001 for RFS; p = 0.166 for OS) and after (p < 0.001 for RFS; p = 0.456 for OS) matching. Regarding subgroups of tumor size smaller than 30 mm (p = 0.098) and tumor size 30-50 mm (p = 0.680), the OSs were similar between the two groups. However, predicted proliferative HCCs had worse RFS compared to nonproliferative HCCs in the subgroup of tumor size 30-50 mm (p < 0.001), while the RFS did not differ in the subgroup of tumor size smaller than 30 mm (p = 0.141).

conclusionPredicted proliferative HCCs have worse RFS than nonproliferative ones after MWA, especially in tumor size larger than 30 mm. However, the phenotype of the tumor may not affect the OS. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Before performing microwave ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma, the tumor phenotype should be considered because it may affect the therapeutic outcome. KEY POINTS: Proliferative hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) may be identified using the SMARS score, an imaging-based predictive model. SMARS predicted proliferative HCCs have worse recurrence-free and equivalent overall survival compared to nonproliferative HCC after microwave ablation. Tumor phenotype should be considered before performing microwave ablation.

Indexed as

Hepatocellular carcinomaImaging featureMicrowave ablationPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID39254824
PMCPMC11387277

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.