The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ablative therapies for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review
Abstract
Aim The standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is surgical resection. Only 20–30% of patients are deemed suitable for surgery. Recently, much attention has focused on ablative therapies either to treat unresectable CRLM or to extend the margins of resectability. This review aims to assess the long‐term outcome and complication rates of various ablative therapies used in the management of CRLM. Method A literature search was performed of electronic databases including Medline, Cochrane Collaboration Library and the National Library of Medicine’s ClinicalTrials.gov. Inclusion criteria were ablation for CRLM with minimum 1 year follow‐up and > 10 patients, published between January 1994 and January 2010. Results In all, 226 potentially relevant studies were identified, of which 75 met the inclusion criteria. Cryotherapy (26 studies) had local recurrence rates of 12–39%, with mean 1‐, 3‐ and 5‐year survival rates of 84%, 37% and 17%. The major complication rate ranged from 7% to 66%. Microwave ablation (13 studies) had a local recurrence rate of 5–13%, with a mean 1‐, 3‐ and 5‐year survival of 73%, 30% and 16%, and a major complication rate ranging from 3% to 16%. Radiofrequency ablation (36 studies) had a local recurrence rate of 10–31%, with a mean 1‐, 3‐ and 5‐year survival of 85%, 36% and 24%, with major complication rate ranging from 0% to 33%. Conclusion Ablative therapies offer significantly improved survival compared with palliative chemotherapy alone with 5‐year survival rates of 17–24%. Complication rates amongst commonly used techniques are low.
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
Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study
Jüni, P., Holenstein, F., Sterne, J., Bartlett, C., & Egger, M. (2002) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/31.1.115 · Cited by 892
Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis
Detsky, A. S., Naylor, C. D., O'Rourke, K., McGeer, A. J., & L'Abbé, K. A. (1992) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(92)90085-2 · Cited by 640
Park, I. J., Kim, H. C., Yu, C. S., Kim, P. N., Won, H. J., & Kim, J. C. (2008) · Annals of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1245/s10434-007-9625-z · Cited by 112
Cited by
Radiofrequency Ablation and Microwave Ablation in Liver Tumors: An Update
Izzo, F., Granata, V., Grassi, R., Fusco, R., Palaia, R., Delrio, P., Carrafiello, G., Azoulay, D., Petrillo, A., & Curley, S. A. (2019) · The Oncologist · doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0337 · Cited by 578
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., et al. (2018) · Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2017.08.021 · Cited by 286
Mechanisms of cryoablation: Clinical consequences on malignant tumors
Baust, J. G., Gage, A. A., Bjerklund Johansen, T. E., & Baust, J. M. (2014) · Cryobiology · doi:10.1016/j.cryobiol.2013.11.001 · Cited by 239
Metadata
- Authors
- Pathak, S., Jones, R., Tang, J. M. F., Parmar, C., Fenwick, S., Malik, H., & Poston, G.
- Venue
- Colorectal Disease
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-08-17
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- e252-65
- ISSN
- 1462-8910 (ISSN-L)
- 1463-1318
- OpenAlex
- W2163508427
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 1.78
- 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: Ablative therapies for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02695.x
- The paper
- Pathak, S., Jones, R., Tang, J. M. F., Parmar, C., Fenwick, S., Malik, H., & Poston, G. (2011). Ablative therapies for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review. Colorectal Disease. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02695.x
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.