Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 189

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Retrospective Comparison of Microwave Ablation vs. Radiofrequency Ablation for Colorectal Cancer Hepatic Metastases

Open access
Correa-Gallego, Camilo, Fong, Yuman, Gonen, Mithat, D’Angelica, Michael I., Allen, Peter J., DeMatteo, Ronald P., Jarnagin, William R., Kingham, T. Peter·2014·Annals of Surgical Oncology

Abstract

BackgroundMicrowave (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are the most commonly used techniques for ablating colorectal-liver metastases (CRLM). The technical and oncologic differences between these modalities are unclear.MethodsWe conducted a matched-cohort analysis of patients undergoing open MWA or RFA for CRLM at a tertiary-care center between 2008 and 2011; the primary endpoint was ablation-site recurrence. Tumors were matched by size, clinical-risk score, and arterial-intrahepatic or systemic chemotherapy use. Outcomes were compared using conditional logistic regression and stratified log-rank test.ResultsWe matched 254 tumors (127 per group) from 134 patients. MWA and RFA groups were comparable by age, gender, median number of tumors treated, proximity to major vessels, and postoperative complication rates. Patients in the MWA group had lower ablation-site recurrence rates (6% vs. 20%; P < 0.01). Median follow-up, however, was significantly shorter in the MWA group (18 months [95% confidence interval 17–20] vs. 31 months [95% confidence interval 28–35]; P < 0.001). Kaplan–Meier estimates of ablation-site recurrence at 2 years were significantly lower for the lesions treated with MWA (7% vs. 18%, P: 0.01).ConclusionsAblation-site recurrences of CRLM were lower with MWA compared with RFA in this matched cohort analysis. Longer follow-up time in the MWA may increase the recurrence rate; however, actuarial local failure estimations demonstrated better local control with MWA.

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 · 10.1245/s10434-014-3817-0

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 189

Metadata

Authors
Correa-Gallego, C., Fong, Y., Gonen, M., D’Angelica, M. I., Allen, P. J., DeMatteo, R. P., Jarnagin, W. R., & Kingham, T. P.
Venue
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published
2014-06-03
Volume
21
Issue
13
Pages
4278-4283
ISSN
  • 1068-9265 (ISSN-L)
  • 1534-4681
OpenAlex
W1977503091
Cited by
189
References
0
FWCI
7.52
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: A Retrospective Comparison of Microwave Ablation vs. Radiofrequency Ablation for Colorectal Cancer Hepatic Metastases. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1245/s10434-014-3817-0
The paper
Correa-Gallego, C., Fong, Y., Gonen, M., D’Angelica, M. I., Allen, P. J., DeMatteo, R. P., Jarnagin, W. R., & Kingham, T. P. (2014). A Retrospective Comparison of Microwave Ablation vs. Radiofrequency Ablation for Colorectal Cancer Hepatic Metastases. Annals of Surgical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3817-0

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.