Network meta-analysis of the prognosis of curative treatment strategies for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatectomy

doi:10.4240/wjgs.v15.i2.258

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 15, Issue 2

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Supplementary Materials of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (3032)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-5) series, Tables (1-5) series.

Item

Count

PDF

163

WORD

HTML

1457

Figures (1-5)

228

Tables (1-5)

256

Sum=2143

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

204

Download

685

Sum=889

Feb 27, 2023 (publication date) through Feb 18, 2025

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (0)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

ISSN

1948-9366

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Meta-Analysis

World J Gastrointest Surg. Feb 27, 2023; 15(2): 258-272
Published online Feb 27, 2023. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v15.i2.258

Table 1 Cumulative mean value of 49 arms of studies and patient profiles from 30 articles of curative treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after primary liver resection

Arm in study, n	Patient, n¹	Male %	Age in yr	HBV (+) %	HCV (+) %	Cirrhosis %	MVI (+) %	rChild A %	Time to recurrence in mo	rTumor size in mm	rTumor (n = 1) %
RH = 17	1405	79.9	56.5 ± 6.8	68.6	33.3	55.8	29.8	78.7	26.0 ± 8.3	25.3 ± 6.8	76.2
RFA = 11	1013	83.2	56.4 ± 5.5	78.5	12.4	59.0	26.6	94.9	18.1 ± 6.5	21.5 ± 4.0	78.6
TACE = 8	1123	86.5	54.6 ± 8.7	73.4	21.7	49.3	30.7	91.7	14.7 ± 6.6	32.2 ± 16.1	62.3
LT = 12	1484	89.1	53.6 ± 5.3	81.7	9.3	68.4	31.6	76.9	19.4 ± 10.4	27.1 ± 8.0	62.2

¹Patients n, cumulated number of patients in subgroup from all studies.

Details of each study are listed in Supplementary Table 1. RH: Repeated hepatectomy; RFA: Radiofrequency ablation; TACE: Transarterial chemoembolization; LT: Liver transplantation; r: Recurrent; HBV: Hepatitis B virus; HCV: Hepatitis C virus; MVI: Microvascular invasion.

Table 2 Predictive P score for each treatment method for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma

P score/subgroup	1-yr DFS	3-yr DFS	5-yr DFS	1-yr OS	3-yr OS	5-yr OS
RH	0.6470	0.4999	0.5100	0.7390¹	0.9320¹	0.8331¹
LT	0.9986¹	0.9998¹	0.9820¹	0.6980	0.5470	0.7505
RFA	0.3531	0.0003	0.0080	0.5340	0.5090	0.4159
TACE	0.0012	NA	NA	0.0300	0.0130	0.0500

¹Best treatment option.

DFS: Disease-free survival; NA: Not available; LT: Liver transplantation; OS: Overall survival; RFA: Radio-frequency ablation; RH: Repeated hepatectomy; TACE: Transarterial chemoembolization.

Table 3 Meta-regression analysis for comparison of subgroups

Subgroup	β	SE	95%CI		Z value	P value
Subgroup	β	SE	Lower limit	Upper limit	Z value	P value
1-yr DFS
Intercept	0.658	0.177	0.311	1.005	3.720	< 0.001
LT vs RH	0.930¹	0.283	0.376	1.485	3.290	0.001
RFA vs RH	-0.315	0.272	-0.848	0.217	-1.160	0.246
TACE vs RH	-1.823	0.447	-2.699	-0.946	-4.080	< 0.001
3-yr DFS
Intercept	-0.353	0.212	-0.769	0.063	-1.660	0.096
RFA vs RH	-0.609	0.335	-1.266	0.049	-1.810	0.070
TACE vs RH	-2.235	0.751	-3.707	-0.763	-2.980	0.003
LT vs RH	1.181¹	0.322	0.550	1.812	3.670	< 0.001
5-yr DFS
Intercept	-0.748	0.216	-1.171	-0.325	-3.460	0.001
RFA vs RH	-0.834	0.366	-1.552	-0.116	-2.280	0.023
TACE vs RH	-0.762	0.577	-1.893	0.369	-1.320	0.186
LT vs RH	1.258¹	0.324	0.623	1.893	3.880	< 0.001
1-yr OS
Intercept	2.185	0.208	1.777	2.594	10.480	< 0.001
LT vs RH	-0.036¹	0.332	-0.687	0.614	-0.110	0.913
RFA vs RH	-0.041	0.325	-0.677	0.596	-0.130	0.900
TACE vs RH	-0.614	0.332	-1.264	0.036	-1.850	0.064
3-yr OS
Intercept	0.996	0.162	0.679	1.313	6.150	< 0.001
RFA vs RH	-0.394	0.251	-0.885	0.098	-1.570	0.116
TACE vs RH	-1.114	0.287	-1.676	-0.551	-3.880	< 0.001
LT vs RH	0.040¹	0.265	-0.479	0.558	0.150	0.881
5-yr OS
Intercept	0.204	0.185	-0.158	0.565	1.100	0.270
RFA vs RH	-0.317	0.293	-0.890	0.257	-1.080	0.279
TACE vs RH	-0.917	0.328	-1.559	-0.275	-2.800	0.005
LT vs RH	0.392¹	0.298	-0.192	0.975	1.320	0.188

¹Best treatment option.

DFS: Disease-free survival; LT: Liver transplantation; OS: Overall survival; RFA: Radiofrequency ablation; RH: Repeated hepatectomy; SE: Standard error; TACE: Transarterial chemoembolization.

Table 4 Overall heterogeneity of outcome measured by Q test with random effects model and pooled effect size of each subgroup

Outcome	Heterogeneity				Pooled effect (overall)
Outcome	Q value	df (Q)	P value	I²	Z value	95%CI	P value
1-yr DFS	224.670	30	< 0.001	86.65	0.672	0.625-0.716	P < 0.001
3-yr DFS	583.665	30	< 0.001	94.86	0.414	0.370-0.46	P < 0.001
5-yr DFS	764.476	32	< 0.001	95.81	0.315	0.276-0.357	P < 0.001
1-yr OS	219.820	46	< 0.001	79.07	0.874	0.850-0.895	P < 0.001
3-yr OS	437.662	45	0.002	89.72	0.642	0.642-0.714	P < 0.001
5-yr OS	730.285	48	< 0.001	93.43	0.546	0.497-0.594	P = 0.068

DFS: Disease-free survival; OS: Overall survival.

Table 5 Summary of the better pooled outcome of treatments depended on the analysis method

Test method	1-yr DFS	3-yr DFS	5-yr DFS	1-yr OS	3-yr OS	5-yr OS
Wilcoxon rank sum test	LT	LT	LT	RFA	RH	RH
Forest plot analysis	LT	LT	LT	LT	RH	RH
Wald test	LT	LT	LT	LT	RH	RH
P score	LT	LT	LT	RH	RH	RH
Meta-regression analysis	LT	LT	LT	RH	LT	LT

DFS: Disease-free survival; LT: Liver transplantation; RFA: Radio-frequency ablation; RH: Repeated hepatectomy; OS: Overall survival.

Citation: Chen JL, Chen YS, Ker CG. Network meta-analysis of the prognosis of curative treatment strategies for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatectomy. World J Gastrointest Surg 2023; 15(2): 258-272
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v15/i2/258.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v15.i2.258