Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 218

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Predictive Value of the Pretreatment Extent of Disease System in Hepatoblastoma: Results From the International Society of Pediatric Oncology Liver Tumor Study Group SIOPEL-1 Study

Open access
Aronson, Daniël C., Schnater, J. Marco, Staalman, Chris R., Weverling, Gerrit J., Plaschkes, Jack, Perilongo, Giorgio, Brown, Julia, Phillips, Angela, Otte, Jean-Bernard, Czauderna, Piotr, MacKinlay, Gordon, Vos, Anton·2005·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Preoperative staging (pretreatment extent of disease [PRETEXT]) was developed for the first prospective liver tumor study by the International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOPEL-1 study; preoperative chemotherapy and delayed surgery). Study aims were to analyze the accuracy and interobserver agreement of PRETEXT and to compare the predictive impact of three currently used staging systems. Patients and Methods: Hepatoblastoma (HB) patients younger than 16 years who underwent surgical resection (128 of 154 patients) were analyzed. The centrally reviewed preoperative staging was compared with postoperative pathology (accuracy) in 91 patients (81%), and the local center staging was compared with the central review (interobserver agreement) in 97 patients (86%), using the agreement beyond change method (weighted κ). The predictive values of the three staging systems were compared in 110 patients (97%) using survival curves and Cox proportional hazard ratio estimates. Results: Preoperative PRETEXT staging compared with pathology was correct in 51%, overstaged in 37%, and understaged in 12% of patients (weighted κ = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.62). The weighted κ value of the interobserver agreement was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.88). The Children's Cancer Study Group/Pediatric Oncology Group–based staging system showed no predictive value for survival (P = .516), but the tumor-node-metastasis–based system and PRETEXT system showed good predictive values (P = .0021 and P = .0006, respectively). PRETEXT seemed to be superior in the statistical fit. Conclusion: PRETEXT has moderate accuracy with a tendency to overstage patients, shows good interobserver agreement (reproducibility), shows superior predictive value for survival, offers the opportunity to monitor the effect of preoperative therapy, and can also be applied in patients who have not had operations. For comparability reasons, we recommend that all HB patients included in trials also be staged according to PRETEXT.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2005.07.145

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 218

Metadata

Authors
Aronson, D. C., Schnater, J. M., Staalman, C. R., Weverling, G. J., Plaschkes, J., Perilongo, G., Brown, J., Phillips, A., Otte, J.-B., Czauderna, P., MacKinlay, G., & Vos, A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2005-02-20
Volume
23
Issue
6
Pages
1245-1252
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2146720328
Cited by
218
References
0
FWCI
6.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Predictive Value of the Pretreatment Extent of Disease System in Hepatoblastoma: Results From the International Society of Pediatric Oncology Liver Tumor Study Group SIOPEL-1 Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2005.07.145
The paper
Aronson, D. C., Schnater, J. M., Staalman, C. R., Weverling, G. J., Plaschkes, J., Perilongo, G., Brown, J., Phillips, A., Otte, J.-B., Czauderna, P., MacKinlay, G., & Vos, A. (2005). Predictive Value of the Pretreatment Extent of Disease System in Hepatoblastoma: Results From the International Society of Pediatric Oncology Liver Tumor Study Group SIOPEL-1 Study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.07.145

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.