ArticleHepatology international2025
Is it necessary to distinguish between combined hepatocellular carcinoma-cholangiocarcinoma with less than 10% of cholangiocarcinoma components versus hepatocellular carcinoma?
Article in Hepatology international, 2025. 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.
- Defining the evaluation standards for the cholangiocytic component in cHCC-CCA: a pathology-based perspective.Hepatology international · 2026Article
- Liver Transplantation for Combined Hepatocellular-Cholangiocarcinoma: A Retrospective Registry-Based Study Using the Korean Organ Transplant Registry (KOTRY).Annals of transplantation · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWhether there are differences in recurrence-free survival (RFS) prognosis between combined hepatocellular carcinoma-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA) cases with a small proportion of CCA components and HCC cases remains unknown. We aim to investigate the differences in RFS prognosis between cHCC-CCAs with a small proportion of CCA components and HCCs.
methodsPatients with malignant liver neoplasms who underwent MRI and surgery were prospectively recruited. All cHCC-CCA patients were divided into different groups according to the ratio of CCA components. The primary end point was recurrence-free-survival. Cox regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to investigate and compare RFS prognosis.
resultsOne hundred sixty-four cHCC-CCA cases and 271 HCC cases were enrolled. There was no significant difference in RFS prognosis between cHCC-CCA cases with a CCA component of < 10% and HCC cases (log rank p = 0.169). There were no significant differences in some major HCC-favoring MR features, such as nonrim APHE (85.7% vs. 81.5%, p = 0.546), nonperipheral washout (80.0% vs. 84.1%, p = 0.534), and enhancing capsule (62.9% vs. 45.4%, p = 0.051) between them. In addition, some clinicopathological findings had no significant differences between cHCC-CCAs with a CCA component of < 10% and HCCs (all p > 0.05).
conclusionsThere were no significant differences in RFS prognosis, major HCC-favoring MRI features, and clinicopathological findings between cHCC-CCAs with a CCA component of < 10% and HCCs. Therefore, we suggest that cHCC-CCAs with pathological diagnosis of less than 10% of CCA components may be treated as HCCs in clinical setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39298106What 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.