Conventional Oral Systemic Chemotherapy for Postoperative Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:The findings of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) about the efficacy of adjuvant conventional oral systemic chemotherapy (COSC) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after curative hepatic resection (HR) are contradictory. Therefore, a systematic review of clinical trials is needed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of adjuvant COSC. Methods:Sources such as MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched.All clinical trials comparing curative HR with HR plus COSC for HCC were identified. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated. Results:Five RCTs and one non-RCT involving a total of 461 patients were included. No treatment-related deaths were reported in the including trials. The adverse effects of COSC were generally mild. However, included studies and meta-analysis showed that adjuvant COSC did not demonstrate statistically significant improvement for the 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival. For the 1-, 3-, and 5-year tumor recurrence and recurrence-free survival rates, adjuvant COSC also did not show statistically significant less incidence. Conclusion:Adjuvant COSC provides no survival benefits for HCC patients after curative HR. Considering the efficacy of sorafenib for advanced HCC and the results of this systematic review, no more trials should be carried out to explore the efficacy of adjuvant COSC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".