Ablative Treatments and Surgery for Early-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We compared overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation (MWA), cryoablation, and liver resection (LR), with the aim of evaluating treatment plans for early-stage HCC. METHODS: Studies in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from April 1, 2004, to April 1, 2024, were searched. Articles were evaluated for quality using the randomized controlled trials tool. Two tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data obtained from the literature were netted using Stata 15.0 and r 4.2.3. The assessed primary outcomes were OS and DFS at 1 and 3 y. RESULTS: A total of 25 publications with 4548 patients were included, including 13 studies in mainland China and 12 in other regions. For 1-y DFS, the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.54 (95% credible interval (CrI): 0.38-0.76) for LR compared with RFA and 0.57 (95% CrI: 0.3--0.82) for LR compared with MWA. For 3-y DFS, the HR was 0.52 (95% CrI: 0.38-0.72) for LR compared with RFA and 0.53 (95% CrI: 0.37-0.76). In the Chinese mainland, LR may have a better 1- and 3-y DFS than MWA, but similar survival to RFA. In the other regions, LR had a better DFS than MWA and RFA patients. The rest of the comparisons were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: For early-stage HCC, LR may be more effective in reducing tumor recurrence than ablative treatments. Cryoablation may be a potential treatment for HCC. The differences in treatment effectiveness in different regions are worth further study.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".