The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Comparison of Radio-frequency Ablation and Percutaneous Microwave Coagulation Therapy
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of radio-frequency (RF) ablation and percutaneous microwave coagulation (PMC) for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-two patients with 94 HCC nodules were randomly assigned to RF ablation and PMC groups. Thirty-six patients with 48 nodules were treated with RF ablation, and 36 patients with 46 nodules were treated with PMC. Therapeutic effect, residual foci of untreated disease, and complications of RF ablation and PMC were prospectively evaluated with statistical analyses. RESULTS: The number of treatment sessions per nodule was significantly lower in the RF ablation group than in the PMC group (1.1 vs 2.4; P <.001). Complete therapeutic effect was achieved in 46 (96%) of 48 nodules treated with RF ablation and in 41 (89%) of 46 nodules treated with PMC (P =.26). Major complications occurred in one patient treated with RF ablation and in four patients treated with PMC (P =.36). During follow-up (range, 6-27 months), residual foci of untreated disease were seen in four of 48 nodules treated with RF ablation and in eight of 46 nodules treated with PMC. No significant difference in rates of residual foci of untreated disease was noted (P =.20, log-rank test). CONCLUSION: RF ablation and PMC thus far have had equivalent therapeutic effects, complication rates, and rates of residual foci of untreated disease. However, RF tumor ablation can be achieved with fewer sessions.
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–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
“In one analysis including 13 studies (9 small RCT) there was a significant improvement in recurrence-free survival with interferon (estimated 3-year RFS of 54% versus 30% of placebo) [200].”
ResultInfluentialLocoregional 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
Principles of and Advances in Percutaneous Ablation
Ahmed, M., Brace, C. L., Lee, F. T., & Goldberg, S. N. (2011) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.10081634 · Cited by 916
Mulier, S., Ni, Y., Jamart, J., Ruers, T., Marchal, G., & Michel, L. (2005) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000171032.99149.fe · Cited by 688
Metadata
- Authors
- Shibata, T., Iimuro, Y., Yamamoto, Y., Maetani, Y., Ametani, F., Itoh, K., & Konishi, J.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2002-05
- Volume
- 223
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 331-337
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2163309667
- Cited by
- 575
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.49
- 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: Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Comparison of Radio-frequency Ablation and Percutaneous Microwave Coagulation Therapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2232010775
- The paper
- Shibata, T., Iimuro, Y., Yamamoto, Y., Maetani, Y., Ametani, F., Itoh, K., & Konishi, J. (2002). Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Comparison of Radio-frequency Ablation and Percutaneous Microwave Coagulation Therapy. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2232010775
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.