ArticleBJS open2025
α-Fetoprotein model versus Milan criteria in predicting outcomes after hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: multicentre study.
Article in BJS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Surgery-centered integrated strategies for personalized hepatocellular carcinoma care.Cancer biology & medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Milan criteria and the French α-fetoprotein (AFP) model have both been validated for predicting outcomes after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma, with the Milan criteria also used for predicting outcomes after hepatic resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the AFP model's predictive value for recurrence and survival following hepatocellular carcinoma resection and compare its performance with that of the Milan criteria.
methodsData for patients who underwent hepatocellular carcinoma resection between 2002 and 2021 were analysed. For both the AFP model and Milan criteria, patients were divided into two groups: those with hepatocellular carcinoma within and beyond the AFP model (scores ≤ 2 and > 2 points, respectively) and the Milan criteria. Cumulative recurrence and overall survival rates were compared between patients within and beyond the AFP model. Predictions of recurrence and overall survival by the AFP model and Milan criteria were compared using net reclassification improvement and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve analyses.
resultsAmong 1968 patients evaluated, 1058 (53.8%) and 940 (47.8%) were classified as beyond on the AFP model and Milan criteria, respectively. After controlling for competing factors on multivariable analyses, being beyond the AFP model was independently associated with recurrence and worse overall survival after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Time-dependent net reclassification improvement and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve analyses demonstrated that the AFP model was superior to the Milan criteria in predicting recurrence. Of note, patients who were classified as beyond both the Milan criteria and AFP model had an even higher risk of postoperative recurrence and mortality (hazard ratios 1.51 and 1.47, respectively).
conclusionThe French AFP model demonstrated superior prognostic accuracy to the Milan criteria in predicting recurrence and survival after hepatocellular carcinoma resection. The AFP model not only effectively stratified patient risk but also identified a subgroup of high-risk patients among those beyond the Milan criteria.
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.