Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 331

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized clinical trial of hepatic resection versus radiofrequency ablation for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma

Ng, K K C, Chok, K S H, Chan, A C Y, Cheung, T T, Wong, T C L, Fung, J Y Y, Yuen, J, Poon, R T P, Fan, S T, Lo, C M·2017·British Journal of Surgery
DOI 10.1002/bjs.10677
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Hepatic resection and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are treatment options for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Whether tumour recurrence and long-term survival favour either treatment has not been established. This randomized trial aimed to test the hypothesis that RFA is superior to hepatic resection in terms of lower tumour recurrence rate and better long-term survival. Methods: Patients with early-stage HCC (solitary tumour no larger than 5 cm; or no more than 3 tumours, each 3 cm or smaller) were randomized into hepatic resection and RFA groups. Demographic and clinical characteristics, and short- and long-term outcome measures were compared between groups. Primary and secondary outcome measures were overall tumour recurrence and survival respectively. Results: Clinicopathological data were similar in the two groups, which each contained 109 patients. The RFA group had a shorter treatment duration, less blood loss and shorter hospital stay than the resection group. Mortality and morbidity rates were similar in the two groups. The overall tumour recurrence rate was similar in the resection and RFA groups (71·3 versus 81·7 per cent respectively). The 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-year overall survival rates were 94·5, 80·6, 66·5 and 47·6 per cent respectively in the resection group, compared with 95·4, 82·3, 66·4 and 41·8 per cent in the RFA group (P = 0·531). Corresponding disease-free survival rates were 74·1, 50·9, 41·5 and 31·9 per cent in the resection group, and 70·6, 46·6, 33·6 and 18·6 per cent in the RFA group (P = 0·072). Conclusion: RFA for early-stage HCC is not superior to hepatic resection, in terms of tumour recurrence, overall survival and disease-free survival. Registration number: HKUCTR-10 (http://www.hkuctr.com).

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/bjs.10677

Cites

30 of 30 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

Cited by

See all 331

Metadata

Authors
Ng, K. K. C., Chok, K. S. H., Chan, A. C. Y., Cheung, T. T., Wong, T. C. L., Fung, J. Y. Y., Yuen, J., Poon, R. T. P., Fan, S. T., & Lo, C. M.
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2017-11-01
Volume
104
Issue
13
Pages
1775-1784
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
DOI
10.1002/bjs.10677
OpenAlex
W2764287136
Cited by
331
References
30
FWCI
12.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.