ArticleCancers2025
Surgery or Percutaneous Ablation for Liver Tumors? The Key Points Are: When, Where, and How Large.
Article in Cancers, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The most recent comparisons between liver resection (LR) and percutaneous thermal ablation (PTA) reported similar efficacy and survival outcomes for primary and secondary liver tumors ≤ 3 cm in size. Nevertheless, LR still remains the most popular treatment strategy worldwide, and percutaneous ablation is usually reserved to patients who are not surgical candidates. However, in our opinion, the debate should no longer be what is the most effective treatment for patients with resectable small liver cancer who are not candidates for liver transplantation, but rather when LR or PTA are best suited to the individual patient. Subcapsular tumors or tumors closely adjacent to critical structures or vulnerable organs should undergo LR because ablation can often not achieve an adequate safety margin. Conversely, PTA should be considered the first choice to treat central tumors because it has lower complication rates, lower costs, and shorter hospital stay. Furthermore, recent technical improvements in tumor targeting and accurate assessment of the extent of the safety margin, such as stereotactic navigation, fusion imaging and software powered by Artificial Intelligence enabling the immediate comparison between the pre-procedure planned margins and the ablation area, are also changing the approach to tumors larger than 3 cm. The next trials should be aimed at investigating up to what tumor size PTA supported by these advanced technologies can achieve outcomes comparable to LR.
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.