The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of tumour budding in colorectal cancer
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Tumour budding is a histological finding in epithelial cancers indicating an unfavourable phenotype. Previous studies have demonstrated that it is a negative prognostic indicator in colorectal cancer (CRC), and has been proposed as an additional factor to incorporate into staging protocols. METHODS: A systematic review of papers until March 2016 published on Embase, Medline, PubMed, PubMed Central and Cochrane databases pertaining to tumour budding in CRC was performed. Study end points were the presence of lymph node metastases, recurrence (local and distal) and 5-year cancer-related death. RESULTS: A total of 7821 patients from 34 papers were included, with a mean rate of tumour budding of 36.8±16.5%. Pooled analysis suggested that specimens exhibiting tumour budding were significantly associated with lymph node positivity (OR 4.94, 95% CI 3.96-6.17, P<0.00001), more likely to develop disease recurrence over the time period (OR 5.50, 95% CI 3.64-8.29, P<0.00001) and more likely to lead to cancer-related death at 5 years (OR 4.51, 95% CI 2.55-7.99, P<0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Tumour budding in CRC is strongly predictive of lymph node metastases, recurrence and cancer-related death at 5 years, and its incorporation into the CRC staging algorithm will contribute to more effective risk stratification.
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
The basics of epithelial-mesenchymal transition
Kalluri, R., & Weinberg, R. A. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1172/jci39104 · Cited by 10,196
Cited by
Lugli, A., Kirsch, R., Ajioka, Y., Bosman, F., Cathomas, G., Dawson, H., El Zimaity, H., Fléjou, J.-F., Hansen, T. P., Hartmann, A., et al. (2017) · Modern Pathology · doi:10.1038/modpathol.2017.46 · Cited by 1,156
Self-citationAdjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update
Baxter, N. N., Kennedy, E. B., Bergsland, E., Berlin, J., George, T. J., Gill, S., Gold, P. J., Hantel, A., Jones, L., Lieu, C., et al. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.21.02538 · Cited by 367
Trinh, A., Lädrach, C., Dawson, H. E., ten Hoorn, S., Kuppen, P. J. K., Reimers, M. S., Koopman, M., Punt, C. J. A., Lugli, A., Vermeulen, L., et al. (2018) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/s41416-018-0230-7 · Cited by 83
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Rogers, A. C., Winter, D. C., Heeney, A., Gibbons, D., Lugli, A., Puppa, G., & Sheahan, K.
- Venue
- British Journal of Cancer
- Published
- 2016-09
- Volume
- 115
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 831-840
- ISSN
- 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-1827
- OpenAlex
- W2518445393
- Cited by
- 241
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.92
- 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: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of tumour budding in colorectal cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/bjc.2016.274
- The paper
- Rogers, A. C., Winter, D. C., Heeney, A., Gibbons, D., Lugli, A., Puppa, G., & Sheahan, K. (2016). Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of tumour budding in colorectal cancer. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2016.274
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.
