The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Image-guided Tumor Ablation: Standardization of Terminology and Reporting Criteria
Abstract
The field of interventional oncology with use of image-guided tumor ablation requires standardization of terminology and reporting criteria to facilitate effective communication of ideas and appropriate comparison between treatments that use different technologies, such as chemical (ethanol or acetic acid) ablation, and thermal therapies, such as radiofrequency (RF), laser, microwave, ultrasound, and cryoablation. This document provides a framework that will hopefully facilitate the clearest communication between investigators and will provide the greatest flexibility in comparison between the many new, exciting, and emerging technologies. An appropriate vehicle for reporting the various aspects of image-guided ablation therapy, including classification of therapies and procedure terms, appropriate descriptors of imaging guidance, and terminology to define imaging and pathologic findings, are outlined. Methods for standardizing the reporting of follow-up findings and complications and other important aspects that require attention when reporting clinical results are addressed. It is the group's intention that adherence to the recommendations will facilitate achievement of the group's main objective: improved precision and communication in this field that lead to more accurate comparison of technologies and results and, ultimately, to improved patient outcomes. The intent of this standardization of terminology is to provide an appropriate vehicle for reporting the various aspects of image-guided ablation therapy.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
New Guidelines to Evaluate the Response to Treatment in Solid Tumors
Therasse, P., Arbuck, S. G., Eisenhauer, E. A., Wanders, J., Kaplan, R. S., Rubinstein, L., Verweij, J., Van Glabbeke, M., van Oosterom, A. T., Christian, M. C., et al. (2000) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/92.3.205 · Cited by 15,660
Cited by
EASL–EORTC Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma
European Association for the Study of the Liver, & European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (2012) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2011.12.001 · Cited by 5,218
Stevens, A., Shamseer, L., Weinstein, E., Yazdi, F., Turner, L., Thielman, J., Altman, D. G., Hirst, A., Hoey, J., Palepu, A., et al. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g3804 · Cited by 242
Metadata
- Authors
- Goldberg, S. N., Grassi, C. J., Cardella, J. F., Charboneau, J. W., Dodd, G. D., Dupuy, D. E., Gervais, D. A., Gillams, A. R., Kane, R. A., Lee, F. T., Livraghi, T., McGahan, J., Phillips, D. A., Rhim, H., Silverman, S. G., Solbiati, L., Vogl, T. J., Wood, B. J., Vedantham, S., & Sacks, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-07
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- S377-S390
- ISSN
- 1051-0443 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2079029988
- Cited by
- 519
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.08
- 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: Image-guided Tumor Ablation: Standardization of Terminology and Reporting Criteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jvir.2009.04.011
- The paper
- Goldberg, S. N., Grassi, C. J., Cardella, J. F., Charboneau, J. W., Dodd, G. D., Dupuy, D. E., Gervais, D. A., Gillams, A. R., Kane, R. A., Lee, F. T., Livraghi, T., McGahan, J., Phillips, D. A., Rhim, H., Silverman, S. G., Solbiati, L., Vogl, T. J., Wood, B. J., Vedantham, S., & Sacks, D. (2009). Image-guided Tumor Ablation: Standardization of Terminology and Reporting Criteria. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2009.04.011
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.