Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 260

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Histologic grading of the extent of residual carcinoma following neoadjuvant chemoradiation in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A predictor for patient outcome

Open access
Chatterjee, Deyali, Katz, Matthew H., Rashid, Asif, Varadhachary, Gauri R., Wolff, Robert A., Wang, Hua, Lee, Jeffrey E., Pisters, Peter W. T., Vauthey, Jean‐Nicolas, Crane, Christopher, Gomez, Henry F., Abbruzzese, James L., Fleming, Jason B., Wang, Huamin·2012·Cancer
DOI 10.1002/cncr.26651
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several grading schemes for the extent of residual tumor in posttreatment pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) specimens have been proposed. However, the prognostic significance of these grading schemes is unknown. METHODS: Histopathologic slides of 223 cases who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation and PD were reviewed. The extent of residual tumor was graded using both the College of American Pathologists (CAP) and the Evans grading systems. The grading results were correlated with clinicopathological parameters and survival. RESULTS: Among the 223 patients, 6 patients (2.7%) showed pathologic complete response (pCR; CAP grade 0 or Evans grade IV), 36 cases (16.1%) had minimal residual tumor (CAP grade 1 or Evans grade III), 124 cases (55.6%) had moderate response (CAP grade 2 or Evans grade IIb), and 57 cases (25.6%) had poor response (CAP grade 3, where 18 had Evans grade I and 39 had Evans grade IIa response). Patients with pCR or minimal residual tumor (response group 1) had better survival rates than those with moderate and poor response (response group 2). Response group 1 patients had lower posttherapy tumor and American Joint Committee on Cancer stages and lower rates of lymph node metastasis, positive resection margin, and recurrence and/or metastasis. Grading the extent of residual tumor is an independent prognostic factor for overall survival in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: pCR or minimal residual tumor in posttreatment PD specimens correlate with better survival in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who received neoadjuvant therapy and PD. Histologic grading of the extent of residual tumor in PD specimen is an important prognostic factor in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who received neoadjuvant therapies. Cancer 2012;118: 3182–90. © 2011 American Cancer Society.

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 · 10.1002/cncr.26651

Cites

18 of 18 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 18 references

Cited by

See all 260

Metadata

Authors
Chatterjee, D., Katz, M. H., Rashid, A., Varadhachary, G. R., Wolff, R. A., Wang, H., Lee, J. E., Pisters, P. W. T., Vauthey, J., Crane, C., Gomez, H. F., Abbruzzese, J. L., Fleming, J. B., & Wang, H.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-10-25
Volume
118
Issue
12
Pages
3182-3190
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
DOI
10.1002/cncr.26651
OpenAlex
W1998805086
Cited by
260
References
18
FWCI
3.58
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: Histologic grading of the extent of residual carcinoma following neoadjuvant chemoradiation in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A predictor for patient outcome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.26651
The paper
Chatterjee, D., Katz, M. H., Rashid, A., Varadhachary, G. R., Wolff, R. A., Wang, H., Lee, J. E., Pisters, P. W. T., Vauthey, J., Crane, C., Gomez, H. F., Abbruzzese, J. L., Fleming, J. B., & Wang, H. (2012). Histologic grading of the extent of residual carcinoma following neoadjuvant chemoradiation in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A predictor for patient outcome. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.26651

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.