ArticleJournal of hepatocellular carcinoma2024
Prognostic Impact of CCA Components in Combined Hepatocellular Carcinoma-Cholangiocarcinoma.
Article in Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma, 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.
- DuXplore: A Dual-Hierarchical Deep Learning Model for Prognostic Prediction of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Digital Pathology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the differences of combined hepatocellular carcinoma-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA) patients with a cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) component ≥ 30% or < 30% versus intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) patients in recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) prognoses. Methods: Patients with cHCC-CCA and iCCA after surgery were recruited. All cHCC-CCA patients were divided into two subgroups (CCA components ≥ 30% and < 30%). Then, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression analysis were used to investigate and compare the differences of cHCC-CCAs with a CCA component ≥ 30% or < 30% versus iCCAs in RFS and OS prognoses, respectively. The differences of MRI features between cHCC-CCAs with a CCA component ≥ 30% and < 30% were also compared. Results: One hundred sixty-four cHCC-CCAs and 146 iCCAs were enrolled. Compared with iCCAs, cHCC-CCAs with a CCA component < 30% had better OS prognosis (HR: 2.888, p = 0.045). However, Cox regression analysis revealed that cHCC-CCAs with a CCA component ≥ 30% had poorer RFS (HR: 0.503, p < 0.001) and OS (HR: 0.58, p = 0.033) prognoses than iCCAs. In addition, rim APHE (OR = 0.286, p < 0.001), targetoid diffusion restriction (OR = 0.316, p = 0.019), corona enhancement (OR = 0.481, p = 0.033), delayed enhancement (OR = 0.251, p = 0.001), and LR-M (OR = 1.586, p < 0.001) were significant factors associated with cHCC-CCAs with a CCA component ≥ 30%. Multivariable regression analyses showed that only LR-M (OR = 1.522, p = 0.042) was a significantly independent predictor for cHCC-CCAs with a CCA component ≥ 30%. Conclusion: cHCC-CCAs with a CCA component ≥ 30% had worse prognoses than iCCAs. Therefore, we suggest that the postoperative treatment of cHCC-CCAs with a CCA component ≥ 30% can be based on the treatment strategy for iCCAs.
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.