ArticleJournal of hepatocellular carcinoma2025
Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Hepatectomy in Patients with Early or Intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multi-Institutional Cohort Study in an Asian Population.
Article in Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) has been increasingly applied for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the effectiveness of MIH has yet to be well established. Patients and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients aged 20 years and older, newly receiving MIH for HCC with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) classification stage 0, A or B from 2010 to 2019. Two 1:1 propensity score-matched cohorts of those receiving open hepatectomy (OH) and those receiving radiofrequency ablation (RFA) were selected as comparison groups. As a control analysis, we compared patients receiving OH with those receiving RFA under the hypothesis that the OH group had better survival outcomes than the RFA group. Results: We included a total of 555 matched patients receiving MIH or OH, and 382 matched patients receiving MIH or RFA. Compared to the OH group, MIH group was associated with better overall survival (OS) (Hazard ratios (HR): 0.62; 95% CI: 0.43-0.88) and similar PFS (HR: 0.92; 0.74-1.16). Compared to the RFA group, we found the MIH group was associated with better OS (0.46; 0.32-0.67) and better PFS (0.48; 0.38-0.61). We found consistent results from a series of subgroup analyses (eg, age groups, BCLC stages and hospital levels) and sensitivity analyses (eg, study period restricted to the most recent 5 years (2015-2019)). The control analysis (OH group vs RFA group) confirmed the robustness of main analyses. Conclusion: Our study suggested that MIH had better survival outcomes for patients with early or resectable intermediate-stage HCC, compared to RFA or OH.
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.