The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Prognostic value of tumor “budding” in patients with colorectal cancer
Abstract
From 1970 to 1985, 663 patients underwent curative resection of colon and rectal adenocarcinomas. All surgical specimens were examined for tumor "budding," defined as small clusters of undifferentiated cancer cells ahead of the invasive front of the lesion. Patients were divided into two groups according to degree of budding: none or mild (BD-1) and moderate or severe (BD-2). BD-1 occurred in 493 patients (74.4 percent), and BD-2 was found in 170 patients (25.6 percent). More severe budding was associated with worse outcome: 71.1 percent of BD-2 patients had recurrence, compared with 20.0 percent of BD-1 patients (P < 0.005). The five-year survival rate was worse in BD-2 than in BD-1 (22.2 percent vs. 70.7 percent; P < 0.001). The 10-year survival rate was also worse in BD-2 than in BD-1 (13.8 percent vs. 50.6 percent; P < 0.001). The incidence of BD-2 rose with the Dukes stage. However, the five-year survival rate of Dukes B patients with BD-2 lesions was worse than that of Dukes C patients with BD-1 cancers (29.1 percent vs. 66.2 percent; P < 0.001). Moreover, there was no difference in five-year survival among BD-1 patients with either Dukes B or C lesions (68.3 percent vs. 66.2 percent). The presence of more severe budding appears to indicate a vigorous biologic activity of colorectal cancer. Thus, meticulous follow-up--and possibly adjuvant chemotherapy--may be beneficial for patients with marked budding, regardless of their Dukes stage.
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
Cited by
Risk factors for an adverse outcome in early invasive colorectal carcinoma
Ueno, H., Mochizuki, H., Hashiguchi, Y., Shimazaki, H., Aida, S., Hase, K., Matsukuma, S., Kanai, T., Kurihara, H., Ozawa, K., et al. (2004) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2004.04.022 · Cited by 758
Self-citationKitajima, K., Fujimori, T., Fujii, S., Takeda, J., Ohkura, Y., Kawamata, H., Kumamoto, T., Ishiguro, S., Kato, Y., Shimoda, T., et al. (2004) · Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1007/s00535-004-1339-4 · Cited by 663
To differentiate or not — routes towards metastasis
Brabletz, T. (2012) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc3265 · Cited by 623
Zlobec, I., & Lugli, A. (2010) · Oncotarget · doi:10.18632/oncotarget.199 · Cited by 331
New Criteria for Histologic Grading of Colorectal Cancer
Ueno, H., Kajiwara, Y., Shimazaki, H., Shinto, E., Hashiguchi, Y., Nakanishi, K., Maekawa, K., Katsurada, Y., Nakamura, T., Mochizuki, H., et al. (2012) · American Journal of Surgical Pathology · doi:10.1097/pas.0b013e318235edee · Cited by 227
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Hase, K., Shatney, C., Johnson, D., Trollope, M., & Vierra, M.
- Venue
- Diseases of the Colon & Rectum
- Published
- 1993-07
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 627-635
- ISSN
- 0012-3706 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2073708753
- Cited by
- 536
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.34
- 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: Prognostic value of tumor “budding” in patients with colorectal cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/bf02238588
- The paper
- Hase, K., Shatney, C., Johnson, D., Trollope, M., & Vierra, M. (1993). Prognostic value of tumor “budding” in patients with colorectal cancer. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02238588
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.