Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 426

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of tumor response after locoregional therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma: Are response evaluation criteria in solid tumors reliable?

Open access
Forner, Alejandro, Ayuso, Carmen, Varela, María, Rimola, Jordi, Hessheimer, Amelia J., de Lope, Carlos Rodriguez, Reig, María, Bianchi, Luís, Llovet, Josep M., Bruix, Jordi·2009·Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of response to treatment is a key aspect in cancer therapy. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) are used in most oncology trials, but those criteria evaluate only unidimensional tumor measurements and disregard the extent of necrosis, which is the target of all effective locoregional therapies. Therefore, the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) guidelines recommended that assessment of tumor response should incorporate the reduction in viable tumor burden. The current report provides an assessment of the agreement/concordance between both RECIST and the EASL guidelines for the evaluation of response to therapy. METHODS: The authors evaluated a cohort of 55 patients within prospective studies, including 24 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) with drug eluting beads (DEB‐TACE) and 31 patients who underwent percutaneous ablation (percutaneous ethanol injection [PEI]/radiofrequency [RF]). Triphasic helical computed tomography scans were performed at baseline, at 1 month, and at 3 months after procedure, and 2 independent radiologists evaluated tumor response. RESULTS: Evaluating response according to RECIST criteria, no patients achieved a complete response (CR), 21.8% of patients achieved a partial response (PR) (none in the PEI/RF group), 47.3% of patients had stable disease (SD), and 30.9% of patients had progressive disease (PD). When response was evaluated according to the EASL guidelines, 54.5% of patients achieved a CR, 27.3% of patients achieved a PR, 3.6% of patients had SD, and 14.5% had PD. The κ coefficient was 0.193 (95% confidence interval, 0.0893‐0.2967; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: RECIST missed all CRs and underestimated the extent of partial tumor response because of tissue necrosis, wrongly assessing the therapeutic efficacy of locoregional therapies. This evaluation should incorporate the reduction in viable tumor burden as recognized by nonenhanced areas on dynamic imaging studies. Cancer, 2009. © 2008 American Cancer Society.

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/cncr.24050

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 426

Metadata

Authors
Forner, A., Ayuso, C., Varela, M., Rimola, J., Hessheimer, A. J., de Lope, C. R., Reig, M., Bianchi, L., Llovet, J. M., & Bruix, J.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-01-20
Volume
115
Issue
3
Pages
616-623
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
OpenAlex
W2024029636
Cited by
426
References
4
FWCI
16.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Evaluation of tumor response after locoregional therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma: Are response evaluation criteria in solid tumors reliable? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.24050
The paper
Forner, A., Ayuso, C., Varela, M., Rimola, J., Hessheimer, A. J., de Lope, C. R., Reig, M., Bianchi, L., Llovet, J. M., & Bruix, J. (2009). Evaluation of tumor response after locoregional therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma: Are response evaluation criteria in solid tumors reliable? Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24050

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.