ArticleBMC cancer2025
Radiofrequency ablation versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter, propensity score matching analysis.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy versus radiofrequency ablation in hepatocellular carcinoma within Milan criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- First randomized controlled trial comparing stereotactic body radiotherapy and radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: lessons and key considerations for interpretation of results.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed at analyzing and comparing the clinical efficacy and prognosis of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC).
methodsClinicopathological data of RHCC patients who underwent RFA or SBRT as treatment from three medical centers were retrospectively reviewed. The survival outcomes of patients who underwent SBRT were compared with those who underwent RFA. Using the Kaplan-Meier method, survival curves for the two groups of patients were generated, and the log-rank test was used to compare survival differences. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to match patients of the SBRT and RFA groups in a 1:1 ratio.
resultsThe SBRT group had a significantly better overall survival (OS) than the RFA group and no statistical differences were found in disease-free survival (DFS) in the two groups before and after PSM. After PSM, subgroup analysis demonstrated that, compared with the RFA group, the SBRT group had a significantly better OS in terms of tumor location in the subphrenic or subcapsular area, tumor size > 2.5 cm, and tumor proximity to major vessels ≤ 1 cm.
conclusionsSBRT appears to be an effective priority to RFA for RHCC patients especially when RFA is not feasible due to tumor location, size, and proximity to major vessels.
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.