Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,708

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intention-to-treat analysis of surgical treatment for early hepatocellular carcinoma: Resection versus transplantation

Open access
Llovet, Josep M., Fuster, Josep, Bruix, Jordi·1999·Hepatology

Abstract

Liver transplantation is proposed as the best therapy for early hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients. However, the confrontation with the results obtained by surgical resection has never been done on an intention-to-treat basis. Between 1989 and 1997, 164 out of 1,265 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma were evaluated for surgery. Seventy-seven (48 men, mean 61 years of age, 74 Child-Pugh class A, size 33 ± 18 mm) were resected (first line option) and 87 (65 men, mean 55 years of age, 50 Child-Pugh class B/C, size 24 ± 14 mm) were selected for transplantation. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year “intention-to-treat” survival was 85%, 62%, and 51% for resection and 84%, 69%, and 69% for transplantation (8 drop-outs on waiting list). Bilirubin and clinically relevant portal hypertension were independent survival predictors after resection. Thereby, the 5-year survival of the best candidates (absence of clinically relevant portal hypertension, n = 35) was 74%, whereas it was 25% for the worst candidates (portal hypertension and bilirubin ≥1 mg/dL, n = 27) (P < .00001). The variable “drop-out on waiting list” was the sole survival predictor after transplantation. The 2-year survival rate of patients evaluated for transplantation was 84% in the 1989 to 1995 period (mean waiting time, 62 days; no drop-outs) and 54% during 1996 to 1997 (mean waiting time, 162 days; 8 drop-outs)(P < .003). This outcome was significantly lower than that of the best candidates for resection (P = .002). In conclusion, a proper selection of candidates for resection promotes better results than transplantation, in which the results are significantly hampered by the growing incidence of drop-outs because of the increasing waiting time.

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.510300629

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 1,708

Metadata

Authors
Llovet, J. M., Fuster, J., & Bruix, J.
Venue
Hepatology
Published
1999-12
Volume
30
Issue
6
Pages
1434-1440
ISSN
0270-9139 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2060050131
Cited by
1,708
References
1
FWCI
20.55
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: Intention-to-treat analysis of surgical treatment for early hepatocellular carcinoma: Resection versus transplantation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/hep.510300629
The paper
Llovet, J. M., Fuster, J., & Bruix, J. (1999). Intention-to-treat analysis of surgical treatment for early hepatocellular carcinoma: Resection versus transplantation. Hepatology. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.510300629

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.