ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2026
Significance of surgical margin width versus anatomical resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesExtensive research has examined the survival benefits of anatomical resection versus wide surgical margins in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Yet how to choose between them in practice remains unsettled. We therefore investigated whether tumor size could inform this surgical decision.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 302 patients with HCC who underwent curative liver resection at three centers between December 2009 and December 2010. Patients were divided into two groups according to tumor diameter: ≤3 cm (n=104) and >3 cm (n=198). Baseline clinicopathologic characteristics and longterm oncologic outcomes were compared between the two groups. We also assessed how surgical margin width (≥1 cm vs. <1 cm) and anatomical resection influenced overall survival (OS) and recurrencefree survival (RFS) in each subgroup. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).
resultsThe effect of surgical margin width on prognosis differed based on tumor size. Among patients with tumors >3 cm, a margin ≥1 cm was associated with better OS and RFS (P<0.05) and lower rates of early recurrence. For tumors ≤3 cm, survival correlated with multiple factors-including Hepatitis B Virus Deoxyribonucleic Acid (HBV-DNA) level, serum Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), tumor number, Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) stage, tumor capsule, microvascular invasion, and vascular thrombus but not with surgical margin width.
conclusionTumor diameter influences the choice of surgical strategy for HCC. Anatomical and nonanatomical resection yielded comparable prognosis for tumors ≤3 cm. For lesions larger than 3 cm, however, wide-margin resection offered better survival than anatomical resection alone.
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.