ArticleCancer medicine2026
Survival Benefit and Safety of Anatomic Resection in Cirrhotic Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Propensity-Matched Analysis of 1699 Patients.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
backgroundThe efficacy of anatomic resection (AR) versus non-anatomic resection (NAR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial, particularly among patients with differing underlying liver conditions. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of AR and NAR in HCC patients with and without liver cirrhosis.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from HCC patients who underwent hepatectomy at West China Hospital between 2010 and 2022. Patients were stratified based on the presence of liver cirrhosis. Propensity score matching (PSM) was then applied separately within each stratum (cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic) to compare perioperative outcomes and long-term prognosis between AR and NAR.
resultsA total of 1699 patients were enrolled, including 866 with cirrhosis and 833 without cirrhosis. Before PSM, AR was associated with significantly superior overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) compared to NAR. Following PSM (1:1 matching based on resection type within each cirrhosis stratum), similar survival advantages for AR were observed. In the matched cirrhotic cohort (255 patients per group), the AR group exhibited significantly better OS (median: 36.5 vs. 25.2 months; p < 0.001) and RFS (median: 26.9 vs. 17.4 months; p < 0.001) compared to the NAR group. Similarly, in the matched non-cirrhotic cohort (284 patients per group), the AR group showed significantly improved OS (median: 36.3 vs. 23.9 months; p < 0.001) and RFS (median: 27.8 vs. 18.5 months; p < 0.001) compared to the NAR group. No significant differences were observed in perioperative outcomes, including postoperative complications and hospital length of stay.
conclusionsCompared to NAR, AR improved long-term prognosis in HCC patients. This survival benefit was evident even in cirrhotic patients and was not associated with increased perioperative risks.
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.