Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 531

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Radiofrequency Ablation With or Without Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization in the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Prospective Randomized Trial

Peng, Zhen-Wei, Zhang, Yao-Jun, Chen, Min-Shan, Xu, Li, Liang, Hui-Hong, Lin, Xiao-Jun, Guo, Rong-Ping, Zhang, Ya-Qi, Lau, Wan Yee·2013·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To compare radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with or without transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Patients and Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted on 189 patients with HCC less than 7 cm at a single tertiary referral center between October 2006 and June 2009. Patients were randomly asssigned to receive TACE combined with RFA (TACE-RFA; n = 94) or RFA alone (n = 95). The primary end point was overall survival. The secondary end point was recurrence-free survival, and the tertiary end point was adverse effects. Results: At a follow-up of 7 to 62 months, 34 patients in the TACE-RFA group and 48 patients in the RFA group had died. Thirty-three patients and 52 patients had developed recurrence in the TACE-RFA group and RFA group, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 4-year overall survivals for the TACE-RFA group and the RFA group were 92.6%, 66.6%, and 61.8% and 85.3%, 59%, and 45.0%, respectively. The corresponding recurrence-free survivals were 79.4%, 60.6%, and 54.8% and 66.7%, 44.2%, and 38.9%, respectively. Patients in the TACE-RFA group had better overall survival and recurrence-free survival than patients in the RFA group (hazard ratio, 0.525; 95% CI, 0.335 to 0.822; P = .002; hazard ratio, 0.575; 95% CI, 0.374 to 0.897; P = .009, respectively). There were no treatment-related deaths. On logistic regression analyses, treatment allocation, tumor size, and tumor number were significant prognostic factors for overall survival, whereas treatment allocation and tumor number were significant prognostic factors for recurrence-free survival. Conclusion: TACE-RFA was superior to RFA alone in improving survival for patients with HCC less than 7 cm.

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.2012.42.9936

Cites

27 of 27 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

Show all 27 references

Cited by

See all 531

Metadata

Authors
Peng, Z.-W., Zhang, Y.-J., Chen, M.-S., Xu, L., Liang, H.-H., Lin, X.-J., Guo, R.-P., Zhang, Y.-Q., & Lau, W. Y.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2013-02-01
Volume
31
Issue
4
Pages
426-432
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2172053487
Cited by
531
References
27
FWCI
18.65
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 With or Without Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization in the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Prospective Randomized Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2012.42.9936
The paper
Peng, Z.-W., Zhang, Y.-J., Chen, M.-S., Xu, L., Liang, H.-H., Lin, X.-J., Guo, R.-P., Zhang, Y.-Q., & Lau, W. Y. (2013). Radiofrequency Ablation With or Without Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization in the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Prospective Randomized Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2012.42.9936

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.