HCC complicated by PVT: Outcome and the role of anticoagulation therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This retrospective study investigated the clinical impact of PVT on the course of patients with HCC who were and were not treated with anticoagulation (AC). Methods: We retrospectively evaluated a cohort of 60 patients diagnosed with HCC and PVT. Nine patients were excluded for lack of follow-up. HCC, PVT diagnosis, and imaging follow-up were performed using contrast-enhanced computed tomography or MRI. Of the 51 patients evaluated, 12 received AC and 39 did not. Results: Forty-two patients were male; mean age was 60.3 years. Mean survival after HCC diagnosis was 32.9 months; after PVT diagnosis, it was 18.4 months. No symptoms directly related to PVT development were reported. AC therapy was initiated for 12 patients and had to be discontinued for 3 patients because of complications. AC was not associated with a difference in PVT progression (49% in non-AC group vs. 50% in AC group). After adjusting for age, HCC type (single vs. multifocal), and Child-Pugh score, AC was associated with an improved survival after HCC diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14 to 0.99) and after PVT diagnosis (HR = 0.34; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.88). Conclusion: Patients with HCC complicated by PVT in both AC and non-AC groups had a similar rate of progression. Neither group had symptoms attributable to PVT. Possible AC-related complications need to be considered before proceeding with therapy in patients with HCC and PVT. AC may be associated with a survival advantage in patients with HCC and PVT.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".