ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2025
Recombinant human type-5 adenovirus (H101) combined with radiofrequency ablation versus traditional radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma ≤ 3 cm: a phase III randomized controlled trial.
Article in International journal of surgery (London, England), 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
backgroundRadiofrequency ablation (RFA) is standard for small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), yet recurrence remains common. This phase III trial compared RFA combined with recombinant human type-5 adenovirus (H101) versus traditional RFA in HCC ≤3 cm.
methodsThis study prospectively collected data from patients between 2018 and 2021. This study included patients with a clinically or pathologically confirmed diagnosis of HCC characterized by a solitary tumor with a maximum diameter of ≤3 cm and excluded patients with distant metastasis. All patients were randomly allocated at a 1:1 ratio to the experimental group or the control group. The experimental group received RFA combined with H101, whereas the control group received traditional RFA. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. DFS and OS were evaluated in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population.
resultsA total of 162 patients with small HCC were enrolled, with 81 patients randomized to each group, and ITT analysis was performed. The median follow-up durations for the RFA + H101 group and the RFA group were 36.47 months and 37.57 months, respectively. The 3-year OS rates for the RFA + H101 group and the RFA group were 93.00% and 92.90%, respectively, and the 3-year DFS rates were 54.00% and 41.20%, respectively. Comparisons of OS rates and RFS rates between the two groups revealed no significant differences (OS: P = 0.688; DFS: P = 0.090). The safety profiles of the two groups were both high, with no statistically significant differences observed.
conclusionCompared with traditional RFA, the combination of RFA with H101 did not result in significant improvement in DFS rates among patients with small HCC. However, combination therapy has potential therapeutic advantages.
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.