The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A follow-up analysis of the pattern and predictors of dropout from the waiting list for liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Implications for the current organ allocation policy
Abstract
Since our interim report of the intention-to-treat outcome of orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), we have performed a follow-up analysis of an expanded cohort of 70 patients to further assess whether the observed pattern and predictors of dropout are consistent with the rationale behind current HCC-adjusted Model for End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) organ allocation scheme. All except one patient had pretransplantation staging meeting our proposed expanded criteria—a single lesion ≤6.5 cm, or three or fewer lesions none >4.5 cm and total tumor diameter ≤8 cm. Thirty-eight patients received OLT. The cumulative probabilities of dropout at 6, 12, and 18 months were 7.2%, 37.8%, and 55.1%, respectively. The respective dropout probabilities would have been 11.0%, 57.4%, and 68.7% if the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) criteria for exclusion (single lesion ≤5 cm or three or fewer lesions none >3 cm) were applied. Predictors of dropout with either criteria included three tumor nodules and a single lesion >3 cm at initial presentation, whereas preoperative chemoembolization or ablation therapies were associated with a lower risk for dropout only when applying the UNOS criteria for patient exclusion. In the subgroup with two or three lesions or a solitary tumor >3 cm, the cumulative probabilities of dropout were nine-fold higher than those with a single lesion ≤3cm (P = .004). In conclusion, the low dropout rate in the first 6 months and the differing dropout risks based on tumor characteristics support further refinements in the HCC-adjusted MELD organ allocation scheme. (Liver Transpl 2003;9:684-692.)
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
Transection of the oesophagus for bleeding oesophageal varices
Pugh, R. N. H., Murray-Lyon, I. M., Dawson, J. L., Pietroni, M. C., & Williams, R. (1973) · Journal of British Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.1800600817 · Cited by 7,941
Cited by
Resection and Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Llovet, J. M., Schwartz, M., & Mazzaferro, V. (2005) · Seminars in Liver Disease · doi:10.1055/s-2005-871198 · Cited by 879
Lu, D. S. K., Yu, N. C., Raman, S. S., Lassman, C., Tong, M. J., Britten, C., Durazo, F., Saab, S., Han, S., Finn, R., et al. (2005) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.20688 · Cited by 355
The MELD score in patients awaiting liver transplant: Strengths and weaknesses
Bernardi, M., Gitto, S., & Biselli, M. (2011) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2010.11.008 · Cited by 174
Metadata
- Authors
- Yao, F. Y., Bass, N. M., Nikolai, B., Merriman, R., Davern, T. J., Kerlan, R., Ascher, N. L., & Roberts, J. P.
- Venue
- Liver Transplantation
- Published
- 2003-07
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 684-692
- ISSN
- 1527-6465 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1980374463
- Cited by
- 271
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.01
- 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: A follow-up analysis of the pattern and predictors of dropout from the waiting list for liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Implications for the current organ allocation policy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1053/jlts.2003.50147
- The paper
- Yao, F. Y., Bass, N. M., Nikolai, B., Merriman, R., Davern, T. J., Kerlan, R., Ascher, N. L., & Roberts, J. P. (2003). A follow-up analysis of the pattern and predictors of dropout from the waiting list for liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Implications for the current organ allocation policy. Liver Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1053/jlts.2003.50147
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.