A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Long-term posttransplant survival outcome following bridging locoregional therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Aim: Liver transplantation (LT) is essential due to its curative efficacy, but liver-graft shortages have limited its widespread application. Bridging locoregional therapy (LRT) before LT has been performed to prevent tumor progression, and a recent literature review revealed that it is associated with a nonsignificant trend toward better survival outcomes. However, much more information on bridging therapy has become available since then. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the posttransplant survival and HCC recurrence between patients with and without pretransplant bridging LRT.

Methods: Studies were identified in MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library. Two independent researchers screened titles and full articles, extracted relevant data, and conducted a parametric survival analysis.

Results: Out of 4794 studies, 18 cohort studies were eligible. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 93.1%, 85.0%, and 79.1% for those in the bridging LRT group, while they were 91.8%, 81.1%, and 75.5% for those who did not receive LRT, respectively. There were no differences in overall survival between these groups (HR 0.90; 0.78-1.05, P = 0.17). Interestingly, we discovered that bridging therapy helped prolong survival significantly in a high-risk population with a long waiting time (HR 0.76; 0.60-0.96, P = 0.02). Unfortunately, bridging LRT did not improve disease-free survival (HR 0.98; 0.86-1.11, P = 0.70).

Conclusions: The results indicate that bridging LRT does not generally change post-LT outcomes. However, bridging LRT can significantly improve survival in patients with a long waiting time for LT.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11228543PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgh3.13111DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

bridging lrt
16
survival
9
bridging
9
posttransplant survival
8
bridging locoregional
8
locoregional therapy
8
outcomes bridging
8
bridging therapy
8
long waiting
8
waiting time
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!