Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 305

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tumour-infiltrating inflammation and prognosis in colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Mei, Z, Liu, Y, Liu, C, Cui, A, Liang, Z, Wang, G, Peng, H, Cui, L, Li, C·2014·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The role of tumour-infiltrating inflammation in the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) has not been fully evaluated. The primary objective of our meta-analysis was to determine the impact of tumour-infiltrating inflammation on survival outcomes. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify studies reporting the prognostic significance of tumour-infiltrating inflammation for patients with CRC. The primary outcome measures were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CS) and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: A total of 30 studies involving 2988 patients were identified. Studies were subdivided into those considering the associations between CRC survival and generalised tumour inflammatory infiltrate (n=12) and T lymphocyte subsets (n=18). Pooled analyses revealed that high generalised tumour inflammatory infiltrate was associated with good OS (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.72), CS (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27-0.61) and DFS (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.91). Stratification by location and T lymphocyte subset indicated that in the tumour centre, CD3+, CD8+ and FoxP3+ infiltrates were not statistically significant prognostic markers for OS or CS. In the tumour stroma, high CD8+, but not CD3+ or FoxP3+ cell infiltrates indicated increased OS. Furthermore, high CD3+ cell infiltrate was detected at the invasive tumour margin in patients with good OS and DFS; and high CCR7+ infiltrate was also indicated increased OS. CONCLUSION: Overall, high generalised tumour inflammatory infiltrate could be a good prognostic marker for CRC. However, significant heterogeneity and an insufficient number of studies underscore the need for further prospective studies on subsets of T lymphocytes to increase the robustness of the analyses.

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 · 10.1038/bjc.2014.46

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 305

Metadata

Authors
Mei, Z., Liu, Y., Liu, C., Cui, A., Liang, Z., Wang, G., Peng, H., Cui, L., & Li, C.
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2014-02-06
Volume
110
Issue
6
Pages
1595-1605
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2028311581
Cited by
305
References
5
FWCI
2.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Tumour-infiltrating inflammation and prognosis in colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/bjc.2014.46
The paper
Mei, Z., Liu, Y., Liu, C., Cui, A., Liang, Z., Wang, G., Peng, H., Cui, L., & Li, C. (2014). Tumour-infiltrating inflammation and prognosis in colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2014.46

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.