ArticleJournal of hepatocellular carcinoma2025
TACE Sequential to Radiofrequency Ablation versus RFA Alone in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Within Milan Criteria.
Article in Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization followed by radiofrequency ablation (cTACE-RFA) versus RFA alone in patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) within the Milan criteria. Methods: A retrospective analysis included 343 patients with Milan criteria-compliant HCC. After 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), 93 patients underwent cTACE-RFA, and 93 received RFA alone. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and local progression-free survival (LPFS). Results: The TACE-RFA group demonstrated significantly superior 1-, 3-, and 5-year LPFS rates (84.9%, 58.1%, 36.6%) compared to the RFA group (75.3%, 44.1%, 16.1%; HR=0.54, 95% CI: 0.37-0.79, P=0.001). However, no significant 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS difference (HR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.61-1.83, p = 0.843) was observed between cTACE-RFA (95.7%, 80.6%, 59.1%) and RFA alone group (96.8%, 78.5%, 61.3%). Subgroup analyses revealed significant OS improvements with cTACE-RFA in tumor with high-risk locations (HR = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.17-0.85, p = 0.018) and diameter 3-5 cm: (HR = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.12-0.64, p = 0.003). cTACE-RFA group also was observed significant LPFS improvements for tumors in high-risk locations (HR=0.48, 95% CI: 0.30-0.77, p=0.002) or 3-5 cm in size (HR=0.25, 95% CI: 0.15-0.41, p<0.001). Complication rates were comparable, with no procedure-related mortality and similar severe adverse event incidences (P=0.516). Conclusion: cTACE-RFA significantly prolongs LPFS compared to RFA alone in early HCC, particularly for tumors >3 cm or in high-risk locations, without increasing major complications.
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.