ArticleCurrent medical science2024
Retrospective Analysis of Radiofrequency Ablation in Patients with Small Solitary Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Survival Outcomes and Development of a Machine Learning Prognostic Model.
Article in Current medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThe effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in improving long-term survival outcomes for patients with a solitary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) measuring 5 cm or less remains uncertain. This study was designed to elucidate the impact of RFA therapy on the survival outcomes of these patients and to construct a prognostic model for patients following RFA.
methodsThis study was performed using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2004 to 2017, focusing on patients diagnosed with a solitary HCC lesion ≤5 cm in size. We compared the overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates of these patients with those of patients who received hepatectomy, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy or who were part of a blank control group. To enhance the reliability of our findings, we employed stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting (sIPTW) and stratified analyses. Additionally, we conducted a Cox regression analysis to identify prognostic factors. XGBoost models were developed to predict 1-, 3-, and 5-year CSS. The XGBoost models were evaluated via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration plots, decision curve analysis (DCA) curves and so on.
resultsRegardless of whether the data were unadjusted or adjusted for the use of sIPTWs, the 5-year OS (46.7%) and CSS (58.9%) rates were greater in the RFA group than in the radiotherapy (27.1%/35.8%), chemotherapy (32.9%/43.7%), and blank control (18.6%/30.7%) groups, but these rates were lower than those in the hepatectomy group (69.4%/78.9%). Stratified analysis based on age and cirrhosis status revealed that RFA and hepatectomy yielded similar OS and CSS outcomes for patients with cirrhosis aged over 65 years. Age, race, marital status, grade, cirrhosis status, tumor size, and AFP level were selected to construct the XGBoost models based on the training cohort. The areas under the curve (AUCs) for 1, 3, and 5 years in the validation cohort were 0.88, 0.81, and 0.79, respectively. Calibration plots further demonstrated the consistency between the predicted and actual values in both the training and validation cohorts.
conclusionRFA can improve the survival of patients diagnosed with a solitary HCC lesion ≤5 cm. In certain clinical scenarios, RFA achieves survival outcomes comparable to those of hepatectomy. The XGBoost models developed in this study performed admirably in predicting the CSS of patients with solitary HCC tumors smaller than 5 cm following RFA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39347922What 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.