Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 273

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Downstaging hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and pooled analysis

Open access
Parikh, Neehar D., Waljee, Akbar K., Singal, Amit G.·2015·Liver Transplantation

Abstract

Downstaging can facilitate liver transplantation (LT) for patients outside of Milan criteria with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, the optimal protocol and downstaging outcomes are poorly defined. We aimed to characterize rates of successful downstaging to within Milan criteria and post‐LT recurrence and survival among patients who underwent downstaging. We performed a systematic literature review using the MEDLINE and Embase databases from January 1996 through March 2015 and a search of national meeting abstracts from 2010 to 2014. Rates of downstaging success (defined as a decrease of tumor burden to within Milan) and post‐LT recurrence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted by treatment modality, study design, and patient characteristics. Thirteen studies (n = 950 patients) evaluating downstaging success had a pooled success rate of 0.48 (95% CI, 0.39‐0.58%). In subgroup analyses, there was no significant difference comparing transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) versus transarterial radioembolization (TARE; P = 0.51), but there were higher success rates in prospective versus retrospective studies (0.68 versus 0.44; P < 0.001). The 12 studies (n = 320 patients) evaluating post‐LT HCC recurrence had a pooled recurrence rate of 0.16 (95% CI, 0.11‐0.23). There was no significant difference in recurrence rates between TACE and TARE (P = 0.33). Post‐LT survival could not be aggregated because of heterogeneity in survival data reporting. Current data have heterogeneity in baseline tumor burden, waiting time, downstaging protocols, and treatment response assessments. There are also notable limitations including inconsistent reporting of inclusion criteria, downstaging protocols, and outcome assessment criteria. In conclusion, the success rate of downstaging HCC to within Milan criteria exceeds 40%; however, posttransplant HCC recurrence rates are high at 16%. Downstaging protocols for HCC should be systematically studied and optimized to minimize the risk of post‐LT HCC recurrence. Liver Transpl 21:1142‐1152, 2015. © 2015 AASLD.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/lt.24169

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 273

Metadata

Authors
Parikh, N. D., Waljee, A. K., & Singal, A. G.
Venue
Liver Transplantation
Published
2015-08-25
Volume
21
Issue
9
Pages
1142-1152
ISSN
  • 1527-6465 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-6473
OpenAlex
W1899434656
Cited by
273
References
1
FWCI
3.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Downstaging hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and pooled analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/lt.24169
The paper
Parikh, N. D., Waljee, A. K., & Singal, A. G. (2015). Downstaging hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and pooled analysis. Liver Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.24169

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.