Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 567

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Outcomes After Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy or Radiofrequency Ablation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Open access
Wahl, Daniel R., Stenmark, Matthew H., Tao, Yebin, Pollom, Erqi L., Caoili, Elaine M., Lawrence, Theodore S., Schipper, Matthew J., Feng, Mary·2016·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Data guiding selection of nonsurgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are lacking. We therefore compared outcomes between stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for HCC. Patients and Methods: From 2004 to 2012, 224 patients with inoperable, nonmetastatic HCC underwent RFA (n = 161) to 249 tumors or image-guided SBRT (n = 63) to 83 tumors. We applied inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for imbalances in treatment assignment. Freedom from local progression (FFLP) and toxicity were retrospectively analyzed. Results: RFA and SBRT groups were similar with respect to number of lesions treated per patient, type of underlying liver disease, and tumor size (median, 1.8 v 2.2 cm in maximum diameter; P = .14). However, the SBRT group had lower pretreatment Child-Pugh scores (P = .003), higher pretreatment alpha-fetoprotein levels (P = .04), and a greater number of prior liver-directed treatments (P < .001). One- and 2-year FFLP for tumors treated with RFA were 83.6% and 80.2% v 97.4% and 83.8% for SBRT. Increasing tumor size predicted for FFLP in patients treated with RFA (hazard ratio [HR], 1.54 per cm; P = .006), but not with SBRT (HR, 1.21 per cm; P = .617). For tumors ≥ 2 cm, there was decreased FFLP for RFA compared with SBRT (HR, 3.35; P = .025). Acute grade 3+ complications occurred after 11% and 5% of RFA and SBRT treatments, respectively (P = .31). Overall survival 1 and 2 years after treatment was 70% and 53% after RFA and 74% and 46% after SBRT. Conclusion: Both RFA and SBRT are effective local treatment options for inoperable HCC. Although these data are retrospective, SBRT appears to be a reasonable first-line treatment of inoperable, larger 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 · 10.1200/jco.2015.61.4925

Cites

21 of 21 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 21 references

Cited by

See all 567

Metadata

Authors
Wahl, D. R., Stenmark, M. H., Tao, Y., Pollom, E. L., Caoili, E. M., Lawrence, T. S., Schipper, M. J., & Feng, M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2016-02-10
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
452-459
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2185023695
Cited by
567
References
21
FWCI
21.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Outcomes After Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy or Radiofrequency Ablation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2015.61.4925
The paper
Wahl, D. R., Stenmark, M. H., Tao, Y., Pollom, E. L., Caoili, E. M., Lawrence, T. S., Schipper, M. J., & Feng, M. (2016). Outcomes After Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy or Radiofrequency Ablation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2015.61.4925

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.