ArticleBMC cancer2025
3D synergistic tumor-liver analysis further improves the efficacy prediction in hepatocellular carcinoma: a multi-center study.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBesides tumorous information, synergistic liver parenchyma assessments may provide additional insights into the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to investigate whether 3D synergistic tumor-liver analysis could improve the prediction accuracy for HCC prognosis.
methodsA total of 422 HCC patients from six centers were included. Datasets were divided into training and external validation datasets. Besides tumor, we also performed automatic 3D assessment of liver parenchyma by extracting morphological and high-dimensional data, respectively. Subsequently, we constructed a tumor model, a tumor-liver model, a clinical model and an integrated model combining information from clinical factors, tumor and liver parenchyma. Their discrimination and calibration were compared to determine the optimal model. Subgroup analysis was conducted to test the robustness, and survival analysis was conducted to identify high- and low-risk populations.
resultsThe tumor-liver model was superior to the tumor model in terms of both discrimination (training dataset: 0.747 vs. 0.722; validation dataset: 0.719 vs. 0.683) and calibration. Moreover, the integrated model was superior to the clinical model and tumor-liver model, particularly in discrimination (training dataset: 0.765 vs. 0.695 vs. 0.747; validation dataset: 0.739 vs. 0.628 vs. 0.719). The AUC of the integrated model was not influenced by AFP level, BCLC stage, Child-Pugh grade, and treatment style in training (6 months p value: 0.245-0.452; 12 months p value: 0.357-0.845) and validation (6 months p value: 0.294-0.638; 12 months p value: 0.365-0.937) datasets. With a risk score of 1.06, high- and low-risk populations demonstrated significant difference for progression-free survival (p < 0.001 in both datasets).
conclusionsCombined with clinical factors, 3D synergistic tumor-liver assessment improved the efficacy prediction of HCC.
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.