SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Comparative outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy versus radiofrequency ablation in hepatocellular carcinoma within Milan criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically compare the clinical efficacy and adverse events between stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) within the Milan criteria through a meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science from database inception to May 1, 2025, for studies comparing SBRT and RFA in HCC patients meeting the Milan criteria. Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4 software for meta-analysis. Results: Ten studies (9 retrospective and 1 randomized controlled trial) involving 1505 patients were included. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS: HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.72-1.32, P = 0.87) and progression-free survival (PFS: HR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.67-1.06, P = 0.14) demonstrated no significant differences between SBRT and RFA. Subgroup analyses based on tumor diameter, tumor origin type, and study design revealed no significant differences in pooled HRs for OS or PFS. The incidence of adverse events showed no statistical difference between SBRT and RFA (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.53-1.01, P = 0.05). Conclusion: SBRT and RFA exhibit comparable efficacy and safety profiles in managing HCC within 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.