Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 1, 2026
A "Patient-Like" Orthotopic Syngeneic Mouse Model of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Metastasis
Published on: October 24, 2015
Impact of follow-up interval on patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after curative ablation
Wenwu Liu1,2, Yun Zheng1,2, Ruhai Zou1,3
1State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Background:
The optimal follow-up strategy after curative thermal ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains unclear.
Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed a prospective series of 616 patients who underwent curative thermal ablation for HCC within the Milan criteria. Multivariate Cox model was used to identify independent predictive factors for recurrence; accordingly, patients were stratified into 2 groups with different relapse risks: a low-risk group (solitary tumor ≤3 cm) and a high-risk group (multiple tumors ≤3 cm or solitary tumor between 3 and 5 cm). Then, patients were classified into short- (< 4 months) or long-interval (4-6 months) surveillance groups according to follow-up intensity within the first 2 years after ablation. The overall survival (OS) of patients were compared between short- and long-interval groups in low- or high-risk groups, as well as the stage of recurrent tumors and the proportion of patients who received curative-intent retreatments.
Results:
In the low-risk group, 54 (83.0%) and 18 (72.0%) of patients exhibited early relapse at the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) 0/A stage in the short- and long-interval groups, respectively (P = 0.172); accordingly, 44 (77.2%) and 18 (81.8%) of patients received curative-intent retreatment (P = 0.086) after recurrence. Hence, 5-year OS was similar between short- and long-interval groups (80.4% vs. 77.5%, P = 0.400) in low-risk patients. However, in the high-risk group, patients with a short interval exhibited early relapse more frequently at the BCLC 0/A stage (83% vs. 72%, P = 0.028), with a trend showing that the corresponding proportion of patients who received curative-intent retreatment greater than that in the long-interval group (64.2% vs. 37.5%, P = 0.087). Moreover, the short-interval group showed better 5-year OS than the long-interval group in high-risk patients (69.9% vs. 42.7%, P = 0.020).
Conclusions:
Compared to a short surveillance interval, a long surveillance interval does not reduce OS in low-risk patients; however, a long surveillance interval compromises OS in high-risk patients.
Related Concept Videos
01:03Prediction Intervals
However, the point estimate is most likely not the exact value of the population parameter, but close to it. After calculating point estimates, we construct interval estimates, called confidence intervals or prediction intervals. This prediction interval comprises a range of values unlike the point estimate and is a better predictor of the observed sample value, y.
01:21Confidence Intervals
A...
01:29Improper Integrals: Infinite Intervals
01:19Impact of Groups on Groups
00:55Interval Level of Measurement
Data measured using the interval scale are similar to ordinal level data because they have a definite arrangement. However, in the interval level of measurement, the differences between data values are meaningful even though the data does not have a starting point.
Temperature is measured using the interval scale. It is measurable data, and the difference between...
01:19Interpretation of Confidence Intervals
Confidence intervals have confidence coefficients that are crucial for their interpretation. The most common confidence coefficients are 0.90, 0.95, and 0.99, which can be written as percentages–90%, 95%, and 99%, respectively.
Suppose a person calculates a confidence interval with a confidence coefficient of 0.95. In that case, they can...