Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 171

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Pilot randomized trial of selective internal radiation therapy vs. chemoembolization in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Kolligs, Frank T., Bilbao, Jose I., Jakobs, Tobias, Iñarrairaegui, Mercedes, Nagel, Jutta M., Rodriguez, Macarena, Haug, Alexander, D'Avola, Delia, op den Winkel, Mark, Martinez‐Cuesta, Antonio, Trumm, Christoph, Benito, Alberto, Tatsch, Klaus, Zech, Christoph J., Hoffmann, Ralf‐Thorsten, Sangro, Bruno·2015·Liver International

Abstract

Background & Aims: To compare selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), the standard‐of‐care for intermediate‐stage unresectable, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), as first‐line treatment. Methods: SIRTACE was an open‐label multicenter randomized‐controlled pilot study, which prospectively compared primarily safety and health‐related quality of life (HRQ oL) changes following TACE and SIRT. Patients with unresectable HCC, Child‐Pugh ≤B7, ECOG performance status ≤2 and ≤5 liver lesions (≤20 cm total maximum diameter) without extrahepatic spread were randomized to receive either TACE (at 6‐weekly intervals until tumour enhancement was not observed on MRI or disease progression) or single‐session SIRT (yttrium‐90 resin microspheres). Results: Twenty‐eight patients with BCLC stage A (32.1%), B (46.4%) or C (21.4%) received either a mean of 3.4 (median 2) TACE interventions (N = 15) or single SIRT (N = 13). Both treatments were well tolerated. Despite SIRT patients having significantly worse physical functioning at baseline, at week‐12, neither treatment had a significantly different impact on HRQ oL as measured by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‐Hepatobiliary total or its subscales. Both TACE and SIRT were effective for the local control of liver tumours. Best overall response‐rate (RECIST 1.0) of target lesions were 13.3% and 30.8%, disease control rates were 73.3% and 76.9% for TACE and SIRT, respectively. Two patients in each group were down‐staged for liver transplantation (N = 3) or radiofrequency ablation (N = 1). Conclusions: Single‐session SIRT appeared to be as safe and had a similar impact on HRQ oL as multiple sessions of TACE, suggesting that SIRT might be an alternative option for patients eligible for TACE.

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 · 10.1111/liv.12750

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.

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

Cited by

See all 171

Metadata

Authors
Kolligs, F. T., Bilbao, J. I., Jakobs, T., Iñarrairaegui, M., Nagel, J. M., Rodriguez, M., Haug, A., D'Avola, D., op den Winkel, M., Martinez‐Cuesta, A., Trumm, C., Benito, A., Tatsch, K., Zech, C. J., Hoffmann, R., & Sangro, B.
Venue
Liver International
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-01-17
Volume
35
Issue
6
Pages
1715-1721
ISSN
  • 0106-9543 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-3223
  • 1478-3231
OpenAlex
W2103742396
Cited by
171
References
0
FWCI
5.92
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: Pilot randomized trial of selective internal radiation therapy vs. chemoembolization in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/liv.12750
The paper
Kolligs, F. T., Bilbao, J. I., Jakobs, T., Iñarrairaegui, M., Nagel, J. M., Rodriguez, M., Haug, A., D'Avola, D., op den Winkel, M., Martinez‐Cuesta, A., Trumm, C., Benito, A., Tatsch, K., Zech, C. J., Hoffmann, R., & Sangro, B. (2015). Pilot randomized trial of selective internal radiation therapy vs. chemoembolization in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver International. https://doi.org/10.1111/liv.12750

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.