The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Randomized Trial Comparing Radiofrequency Ablation and Surgical Resection for HCC Conforming to the Milan Criteria
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term outcomes of surgical resection and radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a promising, emerging therapy for small HCC. Whether it is as effective as surgical resection (RES) for long-term outcomes is still indefinite. METHODS: Two hundred thirty HCC patients who met the Milan criteria and were suitable to be treated by either RES or RFA entered into a randomized controlled trial. The patients were regularly followed up after treatment for 5 years (except for those who died). The primary end point was overall survival; the secondary end points were recurrence-free survival, overall recurrence, and early-stage recurrence. RESULTS: The 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year overall survival rates for the RFA group and the RES group were 86.96%, 76.52%, 69.57%, 66.09%, 54.78% and 98.26%, 96.52%, 92.17%, 82.60%, 75.65%, respectively. The corresponding recurrence-free survival rates for the 2 groups were 81.74%, 59.13%, 46.08%, 33.91%, 28.69% and 85.22%, 73.92%, 60.87%, 54.78%, 51.30%, respectively. Overall survival and recurrence-free survival were significantly lower in the RFA group than in the RES group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.017). The 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year overall recurrence rates were 16.52%, 38.26%, 49.57%, 59.13%, and 63.48% for the RFA group and 12.17%, 22.60%, 33.91%, 39.13%, and 41.74% for the RES group. The overall recurrence was higher in the RFA group than in the RES group (P = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resection may provide better survival and lower recurrence rates than RFA for patients with HCC to the Milan criteria.
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
Cited by
EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma
Galle, P. R., Forner, A., Llovet, J. M., Mazzaferro, V., Piscaglia, F., Raoul, J.-L., Schirmacher, P., & Vilgrain, V. (2018) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.019 · Cited by 11,406
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
“Two RCT have been reported with opposite results [272,273].”
ResultLocoregional therapies in the era of molecular and immune treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma
Llovet, J. M., De Baere, T., Kulik, L., Haber, P. K., Greten, T. F., Meyer, T., & Lencioni, R. (2021) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/s41575-020-00395-0 · Cited by 1,044
Kudo, M., Kawamura, Y., Hasegawa, K., Tateishi, R., Kariyama, K., Shiina, S., Toyoda, H., Imai, Y., Hiraoka, A., Ikeda, M., et al. (2021) · Liver Cancer · doi:10.1159/000514174 · Cited by 678
The role of hepatic resection in the treatment of hepatocellular cancer
Roayaie, S., Jibara, G., Tabrizian, P., Park, J., Yang, J., Yan, L., Schwartz, M., Han, G., Izzo, F., Chen, M., et al. (2015) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.27745 · Cited by 420
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Huang, J., Yan, L., Cheng, Z., Wu, H., Du, L., Wang, J., Xu, Y., & Zeng, Y.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2010-12
- Volume
- 252
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 903-912
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2032284698
- Cited by
- 844
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 25.78
- 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 Randomized Trial Comparing Radiofrequency Ablation and Surgical Resection for HCC Conforming to the Milan Criteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181efc656
- The paper
- Huang, J., Yan, L., Cheng, Z., Wu, H., Du, L., Wang, J., Xu, Y., & Zeng, Y. (2010). A Randomized Trial Comparing Radiofrequency Ablation and Surgical Resection for HCC Conforming to the Milan Criteria. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181efc656
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.