| Title |
Radiofrequency ablation versus resection for Barcelona clinic liver cancer very early/early stage hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s96760 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhen-Xin He, Pu Xiang, Jian-Ping Gong, Nan-Sheng Cheng, Wei Zhang |
| Abstract |
To compare the long-term survival outcomes of radiofrequency ablation and liver resection for single very early/early stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2015), Embase (1974 to March 15, 2015), PubMed (1950 to March 15, 2015), Web of Science (1900 to March 15, 2015), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (1978 to March 15, 2015) were searched to identify relevant trials. Only trials that compared radiofrequency ablation and liver resection for single very early stage (≤2 cm) or early stage (≤3 cm) HCC according to the Barcelona clinic liver cancer (BCLC) staging system were considered for inclusion in this review. The primary outcomes that we analyzed were the 3-year and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates, and the secondary outcomes that we analyzed were the 3-year and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates. Review Manager 5.3 was used to perform a cumulative meta-analysis. Possible publication bias was examined using a funnel plot. A random-effects model was applied to summarize the various outcomes. Six studies involving 947 patients were identified that compared radiofrequency ablation (n=528) to liver resection (n=419) for single BCLC very early HCC. In these six studies, the rates of 3-year OS, 5-year OS, 3-year DFS, and 5-year DFS were significantly lower in the radiofrequency ablation group than in the liver resection group (risk ratio [RR] =0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83-0.98, P=0.01; RR =0.84, 95% CI: 0.75-0.95, P=0.004; RR =0.77, 95% CI: 0.60-0.98, P=0.04; and RR =0.70, 95% CI: 0.52-0.94, P=0.02, respectively). Ten studies involving 2,501 patients were identified that compared radiofrequency ablation (n=1,476) to liver resection (n=1,025) for single BCLC early HCC. In these ten studies, the rates of 3-year OS, 5-year OS, 3-year DFS, and 5-year DFS were also significantly lower in the radiofrequency ablation group than in the liver resection group (RR =0.93, 95% CI: 0.88-0.98, P=0.003; RR =0.84, 95% CI: 0.75-0.94, P=0.002; RR =0.72, 95% CI: 0.58-0.89, P=0.002; and RR =0.47, 95% CI: 0.33-0.67, P<0.0001, respectively). The long-term survival outcomes for patients with single BCLC very early/early stage HCC appear to be superior after liver resection compared to radiofrequency ablation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 29% |
| Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 57% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 18% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 21% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 52% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 March 2016.
All research outputs
#8,261,140
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#434
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,977
of 406,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#11
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 406,420 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.