The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Microsatellite instability in sporadic gastric cancer: its prognostic role and guidance for 5‐FU based chemotherapy after R0 resection
Abstract
This study investigated whether MSI status can be used as a prognostic biomarker and whether it is helpful for predicting which patients will benefit from 5‐FU based adjuvant chemotherapy. Between 2005 and 2008, an MSI status examination was performed in 1,990 gastric cancer patients who had undergone curative gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. MSI was analyzed by PCR amplification with fluorescent dye‐labeled primers of mononucleotide markers (BAT25 and BAT26) and dinucleotide markers (D5S346, D2S123 and D17S250) specific to the microsatellite loci. Patients with MSI‐H tumors accounted for 8.5% (n = 170) of the total study population. They tended to be older and female and to have distal tumor location, lower tumor stage, intestinal type of Lauren classification and differentiated histological type. The disease‐free survival curves showed no significant differences between MSS/MSI‐L and MSI‐H patients at each stage of I, II, III and IV. In gastric cancer patients with stage II and III, 5‐FU‐based adjuvant chemotherapy showed better disease‐free survival in the MSS/MSI‐L group, but showed no benefits in the MSI‐H group. By multivariate analysis, patients with MSS/MSI‐L tumors benefited from 5‐FU‐based adjuvant chemotherapy in terms of tumor disease‐free survival. MSI status in gastric cancer is not itself a prognostic indicator. However, it appears to be a possible guidance for the use of 5‐FU‐based chemotherapy in stage II and III gastric cancers after R0 resection.
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
Ribic, C. M., Sargent, D. J., Moore, M. J., Thibodeau, S. N., French, A. J., Goldberg, R. M., Hamilton, S. R., Laurent-Puig, P., Gryfe, R., Shepherd, L. E., et al. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa022289 · Cited by 2,160
Arnold, C. N., Goel, A., & Boland, C. R. (2003) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.11176 · Cited by 280
Cited by
Zhao, P., Li, L., Jiang, X., & Li, Q. (2019) · Journal of Hematology & Oncology · doi:10.1186/s13045-019-0738-1 · Cited by 682
Smyth, E. C., Wotherspoon, A., Peckitt, C., Gonzalez, D., Hulkki-Wilson, S., Eltahir, Z., Fassan, M., Rugge, M., Valeri, N., Okines, A., et al. (2017) · JAMA Oncology · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6762 · Cited by 521
Polom, K., Marano, L., Marrelli, D., De Luca, R., Roviello, G., Savelli, V, Tan, P., & Roviello, F. (2018) · Journal of British Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.10663 · Cited by 292
Mismatch Repair Deficiency and Response to Immune Checkpoint Blockade
Lee, V., Murphy, A., Le, D. T., & Diaz, L. A. (2016) · The Oncologist · doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0046 · Cited by 283
Cheong, J.-H., Yang, H.-K., Kim, H., Kim, W. H., Kim, Y.-W., Kook, M.-C., Park, Y.-K., Kim, H.-H., Lee, H. S., Lee, K. H., et al. (2018) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30108-6 · Cited by 219
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- An, J. Y., Kim, H., Cheong, J., Hyung, W. J., Kim, H., & Noh, S. H.
- Venue
- International Journal of Cancer
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-11-19
- Volume
- 131
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 505-511
- ISSN
- 0020-7136 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0215
- OpenAlex
- W2007180356
- Cited by
- 161
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 4.21
- 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: Microsatellite instability in sporadic gastric cancer: its prognostic role and guidance for 5‐FU based chemotherapy after R0 resection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ijc.26399
- The paper
- An, J. Y., Kim, H., Cheong, J., Hyung, W. J., Kim, H., & Noh, S. H. (2012). Microsatellite instability in sporadic gastric cancer: its prognostic role and guidance for 5‐FU based chemotherapy after R0 resection. International Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.26399
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.