Trial reportEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2024
Cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation versus percutaneous ethanol injection for early hepatocellular carcinoma in a resource-poor setting: a randomized trial.
Trial report in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06450613 (Cost-effectiveness of Radiofrequency Ablation vs. Percutaneous Ethanol Injection for Early-stage HCC in a Resource-poor Setting - a Randomized Trial), which is not on this 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.
Cost-effectiveness of Radiofrequency Ablation vs. Percutaneous Ethanol Injection for Early-stage HCC in a Resource-poor Setting - a Randomized Trial
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study assessed the cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation compared with percutaneous ethanol injection in patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma in relation to the objective response rate and costs related to the procedure.
methodsThis was a prospective single-center randomized trial. The primary outcome was cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes were the complete response rate according to the modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors 60 days after randomization and the complication rate within 180 60 days.
resultsFifty patients were placed into the following groups: percutaneous ethanol injection (n=23) and radiofrequency ablation (n=27). Fifty-four nodules were randomized (mean follow-up: 205.37 days). The estimated mean hospital cost was US$ 1854.11 and US$ 2770.96 for the Radiofrequency Ablation and Percutaneous Ethanol Injection Groups, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$ -2674.59, which is advantageous for radiofrequency ablation. After 60 d, 28 of 29 nodules in the Radiofrequency Ablation Group achieved complete response versus 12 of 22 in the Percutaneous Ethanol Injection Group (RD, 42.01 [95%CI= 20.55-63.24]; p<0.001). Only four early complications were observed among patients treated by percutaneous ethanol injection (p<0.05). Late complications occurred in two and one patient(s) in the Radiofrequency Ablation and Percutaneous Ethanol Injection Groups (p>0.05), respectively.
conclusionRadiofrequency ablation was more cost-effective and achieved higher complete response and lower complication rates than the Percutaneous Ethanol Injection Group within this cohort. REGISTRY OF CLINICAL TRIALS: NCT06450613.
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.