Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 408

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Comparison of the proposed UCSF criteria with the Milan criteria and the Pittsburgh modified TNM criteria

Yao, Francis Y., Ferrell, Linda, Bass, Nathan M., Bacchetti, Peter, Ascher, Nancy L., Roberts, John P.·2002·Liver Transplantation

Abstract

We previously proposed modified staging criteria for predicting acceptable outcome after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). These were solitary tumor ≤6.5 cm, or three or fewer nodules with the largest lesion ≤4.5 cm and total tumor diameter ≤8 cm, without gross vascular invasion (University of California, San Francisco [UCSF] criteria). In this study, we further evaluated the performance of the Milan criteria (solitary tumor ≤5 cm, or three or fewer lesions none >3 cm), the UCSF criteria, and the Pittsburgh modified tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) criteria. Pathologic HCC staging according to each set of criteria was performed in 70 patients. The difference in survival when comparing 24 patients with HCC exceeding Milan criteria versus 46 patients meeting Milan criteria did not reach statistical significance (HR, 2.0; P = .12). Using our definition for acceptable 2-year survival to be ≥70%, the 14 patients (20%) meeting UCSF criteria but exceeding Milan criteria had a 2-year survival of 86% (95% CI, 54% to 96%). Survival for Pittsburgh stage I, II, and IIIA patients as a group was significantly better than for stages IIIB and IVA patients combined (HR, 4.2; P = .007), and similar to survival for patients meeting UCSF criteria. Advanced tumor exceeding UCSF criteria served reasonably well as a surrogate marker for poorly differentiated grade and microvascular invasion. In conclusion, our analyses suggest that UCSF criteria better predict acceptable posttransplant outcome than Milan criteria. UCSF criteria confer a different advantage over Pittsburgh criteria, which require information on microvascular invasion that is difficult to ascertain preoperatively without the attendant risk of biopsy.

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 · 10.1053/jlts.2002.34892

Cites

21 of 21 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 21 references

Cited by

See all 408

Metadata

Authors
Yao, F. Y., Ferrell, L., Bass, N. M., Bacchetti, P., Ascher, N. L., & Roberts, J. P.
Venue
Liver Transplantation
Published
2002-09
Volume
8
Issue
9
Pages
765-774
ISSN
1527-6465 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2025847972
Cited by
408
References
21
FWCI
9.60
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: Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Comparison of the proposed UCSF criteria with the Milan criteria and the Pittsburgh modified TNM criteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1053/jlts.2002.34892
The paper
Yao, F. Y., Ferrell, L., Bass, N. M., Bacchetti, P., Ascher, N. L., & Roberts, J. P. (2002). Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Comparison of the proposed UCSF criteria with the Milan criteria and the Pittsburgh modified TNM criteria. Liver Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1053/jlts.2002.34892

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.