SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Efficacy of repeat hepatectomy versus radiofrequency ablation for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a Systematic Review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A bibliometric analysis of research trends and hotspots on recurrence after thermal ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma 2005-2025.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging can Differentiate between Residual or Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Inflammatory Reaction Zone: A Single-Center Study.Current medical imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This article compared the efficacy and safety of repeat hepatectomy (RH) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC) from multiple perspectives. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI from January 2008 to December 2023. We collected all relevant articles and assessed the quality of the data. We analyzed the data for the primary outcomes of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), and secondary outcomes of postoperative complications, recurrence rate, and survival benefit. Subgroup analyses were performed for tumor diameter, patient origin, and publication date. Results: A total of 38 studies were included, comprising 5,339 patients. OS was similar in both groups (HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.84-1.00, P=0.04, Z=2.02), whereas DFS was better in the RH compared with the RFA group (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.75-0.86, P<0.00001, Z=6.15). The incidence of major complications was lower in the RFA compared with the RH group (OR: 5.06, 95% CI: 3.29-7.81, P<0.00001, Z=7.35), but the postoperative recurrence rate was better in the RH compared with the RFA group. There was no significant difference in postoperative mortality between the two groups, but hospital stay was longer in the RH compared with the RFA group. In subgroup analyses, both OS and DFS were superior in the RH compared with the RFA group among patients with tumors ≤3 cm diameter with no significant difference in the >3 cm-diameter group. There was no significant difference in OS between the two groups among Chinese or non-Chinse patients; however, DFS was higher in the RH compared with the RFA group among Chinese and non-Chinese patients. There was no significant difference in OS between the two groups in studies published pre-2015 or post-2015 group; however, DFS was superior in the RH compared with the RFA group for both pre-2015 and post-2015 studies. Conclusion: RH may be the first-choice treatment considering the long-term prognosis of patients with RHCC; RFA may be a better alternative in terms of postoperative and economic factors. RH is associated with a better prognosis in patients with tumors ≤3 cm in diameter.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.