SynthesisInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2025
Liver resection versus radiofrequency ablation for solitary small hepatocellular carcinoma measuring ≤3 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microwave ablation versus resection for small colorectal liver metastases: evolving evidence and clinical considerations.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Taiwan Academy of Tumor Ablation (TATA) consensus on hepatocellular carcinoma ablation.Hepatology international · 2026Article
- A structured, indicator-driven quality improvement cycle is associated with improved adherence and outcomes after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Outcomes of robotic liver resection and intraoperative radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma in posterior segments VII and VIII.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Overall Survival and Complication Rates in the Treatment of Liver Carcinoma: A Comparative Study of Ultrasound, Computed Tomography, and Combined Ultrasound and Computed Tomography Guidance for Radiofrequency Ablation.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundControversy remains regarding liver resection (LR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for patients with single hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) measuring 3 cm or less. The purpose of our study was to compare the prognosis between LR and RFA in patients with solitary HCCs ≤3 cm.
methodsThe meta-analysis followed the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook. All RCTs and cohort studies that compared LR versus RFA in patients with solitary HCCs ≤3 cm were comprehensively searched in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases up to 30 January 2024. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and disease-free survival (DFS).
resultsA total of 6356 patients with solitary HCCs ≤3 cm and 5829 patients with solitary HCCs ≤2 cm from 39 included studies were analyzed (LR = 5759, RFA = 6426). The present meta-analysis of two RCTs showed no statistically significant difference in OS between LR and RFA. However, the meta-analysis of cohort studies revealed that, compared with RFA, LR conferred a superior OS advantage (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-0.93, P = 0.005). There was a significant improvement in the DFS rate with LR over RFA (HR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.49-0.81) and in the RFS rate (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.55-0.76). Compared with RFA, LR resulted in better OS (HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.54-0.97), DFS (HR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.67-0.82), and RFS (HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.57-0.90) in patients with a solitary HCC lesion ≤2 cm.
conclusionsEvidence from cohort studies suggested that in patients with a solitary HCC lesion ≤3 cm, LR is preferable to RFA. Additional RCTs are needed to confirm the validity of this evidence.
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.