Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 343

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Midterm Local Efficacy and Survival after Radiofrequency Ablation of Lung Tumors with Minimum Follow-up of 1 Year: Prospective Evaluation

Baère, Thierry de, Palussière, Jean, Aupérin, Anne, Hakime, Antoine, Abdel-Rehim, Mohamed, Kind, Michèle, Dromain, Clarisse, Ravaud, Alain, Tebboune, Nathalie, Boige, Valérie, Malka, David, Lafont, Clarisse, Ducreux, Michel·2006·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the local efficacy of radiofrequency (RF) ablation of lung neoplasms, with a minimum follow-up period of 1 year. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients (34 men and 26 women; age range, 27-81 years; mean age, 66 years) with 100 lung tumors gave written informed consent to be enrolled in a prospective study that was approved by the local ethics committee. There were five or fewer tumors per patient, each with a diameter of less than 40 mm (mean +/- standard deviation, 17 mm +/- 10). RF ablation was performed in tumors by using computed tomographic (CT) guidance. Follow-up CT studies were obtained within 48 hours after treatment and at 2, 4, 6, 9, and 12 months thereafter to evaluate treatment outcome and complications. Lung spirometry measurements were obtained before and 4 weeks after RF ablation. RESULTS: Ninety-seven of 100 targeted tumors were treated and required 163 RF ablations (1.68 per tumor), each lasting 14 minutes +/- 8, delivered during 74 procedures. The 18-month estimated rate of incomplete local treatment at CT was 7% (95% confidence interval: 3%, 14%) per tumor and 12% (95% confidence interval: 5%, 23%) per patient. An ablation area at least four times larger than the initial tumor was predictive of complete ablation treatment (P = .02). There was a trend toward better efficacy for tumors smaller than 2 cm in diameter (P = .066). Overall survival and lung disease-free survival at 18 months were 71% and 34%, respectively. The main adverse event was a pneumothorax, which occurred in 54% of procedures, but a chest tube was required in only 9% of the procedures. No modification of respiratory function was found when spirometry measurements obtained before and within 2 months after RF ablation were compared (P = .51). CONCLUSION: RF ablation has a high local efficacy and is well tolerated.

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.2402050807

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Cited by

See all 343

Metadata

Authors
Baère, T. D., Palussière, J., Aupérin, A., Hakime, A., Abdel-Rehim, M., Kind, M., Dromain, C., Ravaud, A., Tebboune, N., Boige, V., Malka, D., Lafont, C., & Ducreux, M.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2006-08
Volume
240
Issue
2
Pages
587-596
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2097508883
Cited by
343
References
1
FWCI
15.30
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: Midterm Local Efficacy and Survival after Radiofrequency Ablation of Lung Tumors with Minimum Follow-up of 1 Year: Prospective Evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2402050807
The paper
Baère, T. D., Palussière, J., Aupérin, A., Hakime, A., Abdel-Rehim, M., Kind, M., Dromain, C., Ravaud, A., Tebboune, N., Boige, V., Malka, D., Lafont, C., & Ducreux, M. (2006). Midterm Local Efficacy and Survival after Radiofrequency Ablation of Lung Tumors with Minimum Follow-up of 1 Year: Prospective Evaluation. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2402050807

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.