Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 809

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison of Lipiodol Chemoembolization and Conservative Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Open access
·1995·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Chemoembolization with lipiodol (iodized oil) is widely used to treat patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Severe side effects have been reported, and improved survival has not been clearly demonstrated. METHODS: Patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who did not have severe liver disease and who met additional entry criteria were randomly assigned to receive either lipiodol chemoembolization (70 mg of cisplatin, 10 ml of lipiodol, and gelatin-sponge [Gelfoam] particles delivered through the hepatic artery) or conservative management involving treatment of complications and pain. Courses of treatment were to be given every two months for a maximum of four courses. The main end point was survival. RESULTS: The study was stopped in December, 1992, after a sequential analysis showed the lack of the expected benefit from chemoembolization. As of October 1, 1994, 39 of the 50 patients assigned to chemoembolization and 40 of the 46 patients assigned to conservative management had died. Twenty-six patients assigned to chemoembolization received all four courses of treatment. There was no significant difference in survival between the two groups, although there was a trend favoring the chemoembolization group (estimated relative risk of death in the control group, 1.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.9 to 2.2; P = 0.13). The comparison of survival between the two groups was not substantially changed by adjustments for differences in base-line and prognostic characteristics (adjusted relative risk, 1.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.8 to 2.1; P = 0.31). At one year, the estimated survival rates were 62 percent in the chemoembolization group (95 percent confidence interval, 48.6 to 75.4 percent) and 43.5 percent in the conservative-management group (95 percent confidence interval, 29.2 to 57.8 percent). In the chemoembolization group, tumor growth, as assessed by tumor size and serum alpha-fetoprotein concentration, was reduced and the incidence of portal obstruction was lower than in the conservative-management group. Liver failure occurred after 47 courses of treatment in 30 patients assigned to chemoembolization. CONCLUSIONS: In a group of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma but without severe liver disease, lipiodol chemoembolization reduced tumor growth, often caused acute liver failure, and did not significantly improve survival.

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 · 10.1056/nejm199505113321903

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 809

Metadata

Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1995-05-11
Volume
332
Issue
19
Pages
1256-1261
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2315948693
Cited by
809
References
2
FWCI
25.46
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: A Comparison of Lipiodol Chemoembolization and Conservative Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199505113321903
The paper
A Comparison of Lipiodol Chemoembolization and Conservative Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. (1995). New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199505113321903

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.