Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 387

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Radiofrequency Ablation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Treatment Success as Defined by Histologic Examination of the Explanted Liver

Lu, David S. K., Yu, Nam C., Raman, Steven S., Limanond, Piyaporn, Lassman, Charles, Murray, Kathryn, Tong, Myron J., Amado, Rafael G., Busuttil, Ronald W.·2005·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency (RF) ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by using histologic examination of the explanted liver. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the medical center Institutional Review Board, with waiver of informed consent. Forty-seven HCC nodules in 24 patients (18 men, six women; age range, 33-71 years; mean age, 56 years) were treated with single or double RF ablation sessions prior to liver transplantation. Histologic data from hematoxylin-eosin staining of explanted liver specimens were retrospectively reviewed to determine treatment success, which was defined as the absence of residual or recurrent viable carcinoma cells at treatment site. Tumor size and the presence of large (> or =3 mm) abutting vessels that were observed during imaging were tested as potential predictors of treatment success or failure (Fisher exact test). In patients who underwent postablation computed tomographic (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) imaging within 3 months prior to transplantation (21 patients with 44 tumors), imaging results were analyzed for sensitivity and specificity of residual or recurrent tumor by using histologic data as the reference standard. RESULTS: Thirty-five (74%) of 47 ablated tumors, including 29 (83%) of 35 tumors less than 3 cm, were found to be successfully treated on the basis of histologic findings after a mean interval of 7.5 months between RF ablation and transplantation. Nodules that were successfully treated had mean maximal diameter of 2.0 cm, and nodules that were unsuccessfully treated had mean maximal diameter of 3.1 cm (P=.014). Seven (47%) of 15 perivascular lesions were successfully treated whereas 28 (88%) of 32 nonperivascular lesions were successfully treated (P <.01). Imaging correlation showed 100% (33 of 33) specificity and 36% (four of 11) sensitivity of postablation CT and MR imaging for the depiction of residual or recurrent tumor. CONCLUSION: Histologic evidence directly validates RF ablation as an effective treatment of small (<3 cm) HCC.

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 · 10.1148/radiol.2343040153

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 387

Metadata

Authors
Lu, D. S. K., Yu, N. C., Raman, S. S., Limanond, P., Lassman, C., Murray, K., Tong, M. J., Amado, R. G., & Busuttil, R. W.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2005-03
Volume
234
Issue
3
Pages
954-960
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2035984559
Cited by
387
References
0
FWCI
11.26
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: Radiofrequency Ablation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Treatment Success as Defined by Histologic Examination of the Explanted Liver. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2343040153
The paper
Lu, D. S. K., Yu, N. C., Raman, S. S., Limanond, P., Lassman, C., Murray, K., Tong, M. J., Amado, R. G., & Busuttil, R. W. (2005). Radiofrequency Ablation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Treatment Success as Defined by Histologic Examination of the Explanted Liver. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2343040153

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.