ReviewCancers2025
Liver Transplantation Versus Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Umbrella and Meta-Meta-Analysis of Published Evidence, 2000-2025.
Review 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiple meta-analyses have compared liver resection (LR) with liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but overlapping primary studies and heterogeneous outcome definitions have complicated interpretation.
methodsA PRISMA/PRIOR-compliant umbrella review (PROSPERO CRD420251069248) was conducted. PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched for meta-analyses published between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2025. Quantitative meta-analyses comparing LT and LR were included, while one systematic review of meta-analyses was synthesised narratively. Effect directions were standardised; hazard ratio (HR)-based summaries (LR:LT; values > 1 favour LT) were pooled using random-effects models, whereas odds ratio (OR)-based summaries were described qualitatively because of heterogeneity in endpoint definitions.
resultsFour quantitative meta-analyses and one systematic review of meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. Pooled HRs confirmed LT superiority: overall survival (OS) HR 1.35 (95% CI 1.17-1.55) and disease-free survival (DFS) HR 2.58 (95% CI 2.25-2.96). OR-based summaries from recent meta-analyses were directionally consistent but were not pooled.
conclusionsThis umbrella synthesis demonstrates that LT provides superior long-term OS and DFS compared with LR for HCC, with consistent robustness across both Milan and extended selection criteria. Methodological safeguards against study overlap and subgroup insights-including intention-to-treat analyses, viral etiology (hepatitis B virus/hepatitis C virus), era, and geographic region-reinforce LT as the preferred strategy for eligible patients, while LR remains a critical option where graft availability is limited.
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.