ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2025
Is there any effect of hcc location on selective internal radiation therapy with
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe planned this retrospective study to evaluate the effect of the central vs peripheral location effect on the success of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with MATERIAL AND
methodsThirty-eight patients diagnosed with HCC who were eligible for SIRT with
resultsIn Group 1; mean age was 67. In 5 cases split infusion, in 10 cases tumor selective treatment approach were applied. According to PERCIST/mRECIST criteria treatment responses categories: complete response in 2/1 cases, partial response in 7/9 cases, stable disease in 3/4 cases, progressive diseases in 2/3 cases; respectively. AFP value decreased in 2 cases, increased in 7 cases, and was stable in 1 case. Mean absorbed doses were 347.9 Gy for tumor, 140.6 Gy for perfused normal tissue, and 26.1 Gy for the normal liver. In Group 2; the mean age was 71.5. In 5 cases split infusion, and in 1 case non-selective treatment approach were applied. According to PERCIST/mRECIST criteria treatment responses categories: complete response in 7/6 cases, partial response in 7/10 cases, stable disease in 2/2 cases, and progressive diseases in 3/3 cases; respectively. AFP value decreased in 9 cases, increased in 2 cases, and was stable in 2 cases. Mean absorbed doses were 495.9 Gy for tumor, 134 Gy for perfused normal tissue, and 17.3 Gy for the normal liver.There is no statistically significant difference in terms of gender, treatment response rates, tumor volumes, perfuse tissue volumes between 2 groups. However, tumor-selective approach and absorbed doses of the perfused normal tissue and the tumor were significantly higher in Group 2 (p = 0.007, 0.04, and 0.02; respectively).
conclusionContrary to expectation, centrally located HCCs could be treated as successfully as peripherally located HCCs. However, the complete response rate in the peripheral located tumor is more frequent than centrally located ones.
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.