The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Percutaneous Microwave versus Radiofrequency Ablation of Colorectal Liver Metastases: Ablation with Clear Margins (A0) Provides the Best Local Tumor Control
Open accessAbstract
Purpose To identify and compare predictors of local tumor progression free survival (LTPFS) after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) of colorectal liver metastases (CLM). Methods This is a retrospective review of CLM ablated from November 2009 to April 2015 (110 patients). Margins were measured on contrast-enhanced CT 6 weeks post-ablation. Clinical and technical predictors of LTPFS were assessed using a competing risk model adjusted for clustering. Results Technique effectiveness (complete ablation) was 93% (79/85) for RFA and 97% (58/60) for MWA (P=0.47). The median follow-up period was significantly longer for RFA versus MWA (56 versus 29 months) (P<0.001). There was no difference in the LTP rates between RFA and MWA (P=0.84). Significant predictors of shorter LTPFS for RFA on univariate analysis were ablation margin ≤5 mm (P<0.001) (HR: 14.6; 95% CI: 5.2–40.9) and peri-vascular tumors (P=0.021) (HR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.1–4.3); both retained significance on multivariate analysis. Significant predictors of shorter LTPFS on univariate analysis for MWA were ablation margin ≤5 mm (P<0.001) (SHR: 11.6; 95% CI: 3.1–42.7) and no history of prior liver resection (P<0.013) (HR: 3.2; 95%: 1.3–7.8); both retained significance on multivariate analysis. There was no LTP for tumors ablated with margin over 10 mm (median LTPFS: not reached). Peri-vascular tumors were not predictive for MWA (P=0.43). Conclusion Regardless of the thermal ablation modality used, margins >5 mm are critical for local tumor control, with no LTP noted for margins over 10 mm. Unlike RFA, the efficiency of MWA was not affected for peri-vascular tumors.
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
Image-guided Tumor Ablation: Standardization of Terminology and Reporting Criteria—A 10-Year Update
Ahmed, M., Solbiati, L., Brace, C. L., Breen, D. J., Callstrom, M. R., Charboneau, J. W., Chen, M.-H., Choi, B. I., de Baère, T., Dodd, G. D., et al. (2014) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.14132958 · Cited by 1,346
Self-citationLivraghi, T., Solbiati, L., Meloni, M. F., Gazelle, G. S., Halpern, E. F., & Goldberg, S. N. (2003) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2262012198 · Cited by 1,298
Pawlik, T. M., Scoggins, C. R., Zorzi, D., Abdalla, E. K., Andres, A., Eng, C., Curley, S. A., Loyer, E. M., Muratore, A., Mentha, G., et al. (2005) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000160703.75808.7d · Cited by 1,101
Mulier, S., Ni, Y., Jamart, J., Ruers, T., Marchal, G., & Michel, L. (2005) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000171032.99149.fe · Cited by 688
Radiofrequency versus Microwave Ablation in a Hepatic Porcine Model
Wright, A. S., Sampson, L. A., WARNER, T. F. C. S., Mahvi, D. M., & Lee, F. T. (2005) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2361031249 · Cited by 493
Shady, W., Petre, E. N., Gonen, M., Erinjeri, J. P., Brown, K. T., Covey, A. M., Alago, W., Durack, J. C., Maybody, M., Brody, L. A., et al. (2016) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142489 · Cited by 373
Self-citationSolbiati, L., Ahmed, M., Cova, L., Ierace, T., Brioschi, M., & Goldberg, S. N. (2012) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.12111851 · Cited by 366
Nakazawa, T., Kokubu, S., Shibuya, A., Ono, K., Watanabe, M., Hidaka, H., Tsuchihashi, T., & Saigenji, K. (2007) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.05.2079 · Cited by 345
Correa-Gallego, C., Fong, Y., Gonen, M., D’Angelica, M. I., Allen, P. J., DeMatteo, R. P., Jarnagin, W. R., & Kingham, T. P. (2014) · Annals of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1245/s10434-014-3817-0 · Cited by 189
Self-citationAblative therapies for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review
Pathak, S., Jones, R., Tang, J. M. F., Parmar, C., Fenwick, S., Malik, H., & Poston, G. (2011) · Colorectal Disease · doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02695.x · Cited by 167
Cited by
Cervantes, A., Adam, R., Roselló, S., Arnold, D., Normanno, N., Taïeb, J., Seligmann, J., De Baere, T., Osterlund, P., Yoshino, T., et al. (2023) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2022.10.003 · Cited by 1,796
Oligometastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Review of Definitions and Patient Selection for Local Therapies
Miller, E. D., Hitchcock, K. E., & Romesser, P. B. (2023) · Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer · doi:10.1007/s12029-022-00900-5 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Shady, W., Petre, E. N., Do, K. G., Gonen, M., Yarmohammadi, H., Brown, K. T., Kemeny, N. E., D'Angelica, M., Kingham, P. T., Solomon, S. B., & Sofocleous, C. T.
- Venue
- Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-02
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 268-275.e1
- ISSN
- 1051-0443 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2773761944
- Cited by
- 286
- References
- 20
- FWCI
- 11.40
- 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 Microwave versus Radiofrequency Ablation of Colorectal Liver Metastases: Ablation with Clear Margins (A0) Provides the Best Local Tumor Control. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jvir.2017.08.021
- The paper
- Shady, W., Petre, E. N., Do, K. G., Gonen, M., Yarmohammadi, H., Brown, K. T., Kemeny, N. E., D'Angelica, M., Kingham, P. T., Solomon, S. B., & Sofocleous, C. T. (2018). Percutaneous Microwave versus Radiofrequency Ablation of Colorectal Liver Metastases: Ablation with Clear Margins (A0) Provides the Best Local Tumor Control. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2017.08.021
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.
