Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 272

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Multicenter randomized controlled trial of percutaneous cryoablation versus radiofrequency ablation in hepatocellular carcinoma

Wang, Chunping, Wang, Huaming, Yang, Wuwei, Hu, Kaiwen, Xie, Hui, Hu, Ke‐Qin, Bai, Wenlin, Dong, Zheng, Lu, Yinying, Zeng, Zhen, Lou, Min, Wang, Hong, Gao, Xudong, Chang, Xiujuan, An, Linjing, Qu, Jianhui, Li, Jin, Yang, Yongping·2015·Hepatology

Abstract

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is considered a curative treatment option for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Growing data have demonstrated that cryoablation represents a safe and effective alternative therapy for HCC, but no randomized controlled trial (RCT) has been reported to compare cryoablation with RFA in HCC treatment. The present study was a multicenter RCT aimed to compare the outcomes of percutaneous cryoablation with RFA for the treatment of HCC. In all, 360 patients with Child‐Pugh class A or B cirrhosis and one or two HCC lesions ≤ 4 cm, treatment‐naïve, without metastasis were randomly assigned to cryoablation (n = 180) or RFA (n = 180). The primary endpoints were local tumor progression at 3 years after treatment and safety. Local tumor progression rates at 1, 2, and 3 years were 3%, 7%, and 7% for cryoablation and 9%, 11%, and 11% for RFA, respectively (P = 0.043). For lesions >3 cm in diameter, the local tumor progression rate was significantly lower in the cryoablation group versus the RFA group (7.7% versus 18.2%, P = 0.041). The 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year overall survival rates were 97%, 67%, and 40% for cryoablation and 97%, 66%, and 38% for RFA, respectively (P = 0.747). The 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year tumor‐free survival rates were 89%, 54%, and 35% in the cryoablation group and 84%, 50%, and 34% in the RFA group, respectively (P = 0.628). Multivariate analyses demonstrated that Child‐Pugh class B and distant intrahepatic recurrence were significant negative predictors for overall survival. Major complications occurred in seven patients (3.9%) following cryoablation and in six patients (3.3%) following RFA (P = 0.776). Conclusion: Cryoablation resulted in a significantly lower local tumor progression than RFA, although both cryoablation and RFA were equally safe and effective, with similar 5‐year survival rates. (H epatology 2015;61:1579–1590)

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/hep.27548

Cites

18 of 18 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 18 references

Cited by

See all 272

Metadata

Authors
Wang, C., Wang, H., Yang, W., Hu, K., Xie, H., Hu, K., Bai, W., Dong, Z., Lu, Y., Zeng, Z., Lou, M., Wang, H., Gao, X., Chang, X., An, L., Qu, J., Li, J., & Yang, Y.
Venue
Hepatology
Published
2015-03-20
Volume
61
Issue
5
Pages
1579-1590
ISSN
  • 0270-9139 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-3350
OpenAlex
W1548590980
Cited by
272
References
18
FWCI
8.63
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

How to cite

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

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Multicenter randomized controlled trial of percutaneous cryoablation versus radiofrequency ablation in hepatocellular carcinoma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/hep.27548
The paper
Wang, C., Wang, H., Yang, W., Hu, K., Xie, H., Hu, K., Bai, W., Dong, Z., Lu, Y., Zeng, Z., Lou, M., Wang, H., Gao, X., Chang, X., An, L., Qu, J., Li, J., & Yang, Y. (2015). Multicenter randomized controlled trial of percutaneous cryoablation versus radiofrequency ablation in hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.27548

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.