ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2026
No-touch versus conventional radiofrequency ablation for treating solitary recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma ≤ 3 cm: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the outcomes of no-touch radiofrequency ablation (NT-RFA) and conventional RFA (C-RFA) in the treatment of solitary recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) ≤ 3 cm.
methods255 patients with rHCC treated with RFA in our center from January 2017 to December 2023 were retrospectively analyzed (NT-RFA: 63, C-RFA: 192 patients). Short- and long-term outcomes were compared, and survival rates were calculated.
resultsThe ablation range and safety margin differed significantly between the two groups (both p < 0.01). The 1-, 3-, and 5- years overall survival (OS) rates were 96.83%, 75.51% and 45.61% respectively in the NT-RFA group, while 97.39%, 77.48% and 48.56% in the C-RFA group, with no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.510). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates in the NT-RFA group were 73.02%, 46.22% and 36.77%, respectively, while 69.70%, 38.95% and 27.78% in the C-RFA group, with no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.338). The 1-, 3-, 5-year local tumor progression (LTP) free survival rates in the NT-RFA and C-RFA group were 84.13%, 67.04%, 67.04% and 78.02%, 53.70%, 48.80% respectively, with significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.047). However, there was no significant difference in intrahepatic distant recurrence free survival rates between the two groups (P = 0.068).
conclusionNT-RFA treatment for rHCC ≤ 3 cm is as safe as C-RFA, but it achieves a larger ablation range and safety margin. Although NT-RFA does not significantly improve RFS or OS in rHCC ≤ 3 cm, it significantly reduces the LTP.
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.