ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Treatment strategies for solitary hepatocellular carcinoma: comparative outcomes of radiofrequency ablation vs. laparoscopic liver resection based on tumor location.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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.
- Recombinant human type-5 adenovirus (H101) combined with radiofrequency ablation versus traditional radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma ≤ 3 cm: a phase III randomized controlled trial.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
- Comparison of the efficacy of laparoscopic hepatectomy and radiofrequency ablation for small hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective study.World journal of gastroenterology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe treatment of early stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has become increasingly complex. This study evaluates the effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for treating solitary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) ≤ 3 cm, with a focus on tumor location and depth.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of patients treated for solitary HCC ≤ 3 cm in the right liver lobe from 2004 to 2022. Tumor depth was categorized into three zones based on proximity to portal vein branches: Zone I (near first-order branches), Zone II (adjacent to second-order branches), and Zone III (near third-order branches). Outcomes were measured using overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates.
resultsOf the 662 patients, for Zone I, II, and III, 240 (65 LLR, 175 RFA); 174 (100 LLR, 74 RFA); and, 248 patients were treated (244 LLR, 4 RFA), respectively. Statistically significant differences in the treatment outcomes based on the tumor depth were observed. For Zone I, LLR demonstrated superior OS (p = 0.043) and RFS rates (p = 0.030) than did RFA. For Zone II, both treatments had comparable survival outcomes, with no statistically significant differences in the OS (p = 0.460) and RFS (p = 0.358). For Zone III, LLR was principally favored, due to easier surgical access and cleaner margins.
conclusionsThis study highlighted the importance of including tumor location and depth, in addition to the tumor size and liver function, in the management of early stage HCC. A multidisciplinary approach is essential for treatment planning and optimizing survival outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39904791What 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.