Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 290

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of painful osseous metastases: A multicenter American College of Radiology Imaging Network trial

Open access
Dupuy, Damian E., Liu, Dawei, Hartfeil, Donna, Hanna, Lucy, Blume, Jeffrey D., Ahrar, Kamran, Lopez, Robert, Safran, Howard, DiPetrillo, Thomas·2010·Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The study was conducted to determine whether radiofrequency ablation (RFA) can safely reduce pain from osseous metastatic disease. METHODS: The single‐arm prospective trial included patients with a single painful bone metastasis with unremitting pain with a score >50 on a pain scale of 0‐100. Percutaneous computed tomography‐guided RFA of the bone metastasis to temperatures >60°C was performed. Endpoints were the toxicity and pain effects of RFA before and at 2 weeks, 1 month, and 3 months after RFA. RESULTS: Fifty‐five patients completed RFA. Grade 3 toxicities occurred in 3 of 55 (5%) patients. RFA reduced pain at 1 and 3 months for all pain assessment measures. The average increase in pain relief from pre‐RFA to 1‐month follow‐up is 26.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.7‐34.9; P < .0001), and the increase from pre‐RFA to 3‐month follow‐up is 16.38 (95% CI, 3.4‐29.4; P = .02). The average decrease in pain intensity from pre‐RFA to 1‐month follow‐up was 26.9 (P < .0001) and 14.2 for 3‐month follow‐up (P = .02). The odds of lower pain severity at 1‐month follow‐up were 14.0 (95% CI, 2.3‐25.7; P < .0001) times higher than at pre‐RFA, and the odds at 3‐month follow‐up were 8.0 (95% CI, 0.9‐15.2; P < .001) times higher than at pre‐RFA. The average increase in mood from pre‐RFA to 1‐month follow‐up was 19.9 (P < .0001) and 14.9 to 3‐month follow‐up (P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: This cooperative group trial strongly suggests that RFA can safely palliate pain from bone metastases. Cancer 2010. © 2010 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.24837

Cites

20 of 20 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 20 references

Cited by

See all 290

Metadata

Authors
Dupuy, D. E., Liu, D., Hartfeil, D., Hanna, L., Blume, J. D., Ahrar, K., Lopez, R., Safran, H., & DiPetrillo, T.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-12-29
Volume
116
Issue
4
Pages
989-997
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
OpenAlex
W1996444128
Cited by
290
References
20
FWCI
9.84
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: Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of painful osseous metastases: A multicenter American College of Radiology Imaging Network trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.24837
The paper
Dupuy, D. E., Liu, D., Hartfeil, D., Hanna, L., Blume, J. D., Ahrar, K., Lopez, R., Safran, H., & DiPetrillo, T. (2010). Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of painful osseous metastases: A multicenter American College of Radiology Imaging Network trial. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24837

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.