The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Redefining the R1 resection in pancreatic cancer
Open accessAbstract
Background: Resection margin (RM) status in pancreatic head adenocarcinoma is assessed histologically, but pathological examination is not standardized. The aim of this study was to assess the influence of standardized pathological examination on the reporting of RM status. Methods: A standardized protocol (SP) for pancreaticoduodenectomy specimen examination, involving multicolour margin staining, axial slicing and extensive tissue sampling, was developed. R1 resection was defined as tumour within 1 mm of the RM. A prospective series reported according to this protocol (SP series, n = 54) was compared with a historical matched series in which a non-standardized protocol was used (NSP series, n = 48). Results: Implementation of the SP resulted in a higher R1 rate overall, and for pancreatic (22 of 26 85 per cent) compared with ampullary (four of 15) and bile duct (six of 13) cancer. Sampling of the circumferential RM was more extensive in the SP series and correlated with RM status. RM involvement was often multifocal (14 of 32), affecting the posterior RM most frequently (21 of 32). Survival correlated with RM status for the entire SP series (P < 0·001), but not for the NSP series. There was a trend towards better median and actuarial 5-year survival after R0 resection in the SP pancreatic cancer subgroup. Conclusion: Standardized examination influences the reporting of RM status.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Yeo, C. J., Cameron, J. L., Sohn, T. A., Lillemoe, K. D., Pitt, H. A., Talamini, M. A., Hruban, R. H., Ord, S. E., Sauter, P. K., Coleman, J., et al. (1997) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-199709000-00004 · Cited by 1,783
Yeo, C. J., Cameron, J. L., Lillemoe, K. D., Sohn, T. A., Campbell, K. A., Sauter, P. K., Coleman, J., Abrams, R. A., & Hruban, R. H. (2002) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-200209000-00012 · Cited by 807
Prognostic indicators for survival after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma
Geer, R. J., & Brennan, M. F. (1993) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0002-9610(05)80406-4 · Cited by 764
Collective Review of Small Carcinomas of the Pancreas
TSUCHIYA, R., TOMIOKA, T., IZAWA, K., NODA, T., YAMAMOTO, K., TSUNODA, T., HARADA, N., YAMAGUCHI, T., YOSHINO, R., MIYAMOTO, T., et al. (1986) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-198601000-00013 · Cited by 348
Current standards of surgery for pancreatic cancer
Alexakis, N., Halloran, C., Raraty, M., Ghaneh, P., Sutton, R., & Neoptolemos, J. P. (2004) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.4794 · Cited by 321
Carpelan-Holmström, M., Nordling, S., Pukkala, E., Sankila, R., Lüttges, J., Klöppel, G., & Haglund, C. (2005) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2004.047191 · Cited by 313
Kayahara, M., Nagakawa, T., Ueno, K., Ohta, T., Takeda, T., & Miyazaki, I. (1993) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19931001)72:7<2118::aid-cncr2820720710>3.0.co;2-4 · Cited by 248
Recurrence of exocrine pancreatic cancer--local or hepatic?
Westerdahl, J., Andrén‐Sandberg, Å., & Ihse, I. (1993) · PubMed · Cited by 175
Factors influencing survival after resection for ductal adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas
Benassai, G., Mastrorilli, M., Quarto, G., Cappiello, P. A., Giani, U., Forestieri, P., & Mazzeo, F. (2000) · Journal of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1002/(sici)1096-9098(200004)73:4<212::aid-jso5>3.0.co;2-d · Cited by 168
Lipton (1995) · Pure Amsterdam UMC · doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19950415)75:8 · Cited by 1
Cited by
Versteijne, E., Suker, M., Groothuis, K., Akkermans-Vogelaar, J. M., Besselink, M. G., Bonsing, B. A., Buijsen, J., Busch, O. R., Creemers, G.-J. M., van Dam, R. M., et al. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.19.02274 · Cited by 1,082
Optimizing the outcomes of pancreatic cancer surgery
Strobel, O., Neoptolemos, J., Jäger, D., & Büchler, M. W. (2019) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41571-018-0112-1 · Cited by 943
Seufferlein, T., Bachet, J. B., Van Cutsem, E., & Rougier, P. (2012) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mds224 · Cited by 389
van Roessel, S., Kasumova, G. G., Verheij, J., Najarian, R. M., Maggino, L., de Pastena, M., Malleo, G., Marchegiani, G., Salvia, R., Ng, S. C., et al. (2018) · JAMA Surgery · doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2018.3617 · Cited by 308
Shin, S. H., Kim, H. J., Hwang, D. W., Lee, J. H., Song, K. B., Jun, E., Shim, I. K., Hong, S.-M., Kim, H. J., Park, K.-M., et al. (2017) · Oncotarget · doi:10.18632/oncotarget.14901 · Cited by 57
Metadata
- Authors
- Verbeke, C. S., Leitch, D., Menon, K. V., McMahon, M. J., Guillou, P. J., & Anthoney, A.
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-06-27
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1232-1237
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2029240267
- Cited by
- 593
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 7.91
- 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: Redefining the R1 resection in pancreatic cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.5397
- The paper
- Verbeke, C. S., Leitch, D., Menon, K. V., McMahon, M. J., Guillou, P. J., & Anthoney, A. (2006). Redefining the R1 resection in pancreatic cancer. British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5397
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.
