Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,388

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tumor Microsatellite Instability and Clinical Outcome in Young Patients with Colorectal Cancer

Gryfe, Robert, Kim, Hyeja, Hsieh, Eugene T.K., Aronson, Melyssa D., Holowaty, Eric J., Bull, Shelley B., Redston, Mark, Gallinger, Steven·2000·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer can arise through two distinct mutational pathways: microsatellite instability or chromosomal instability. We tested the hypothesis that colorectal cancers arising from the microsatellite-instability pathway have distinctive clinical attributes that affect clinical outcome. METHODS: We tested specimens of colorectal cancer from a population-based series of 607 patients (50 years of age or younger at diagnosis) for microsatellite instability. We compared the clinical features and survival of patients who had colorectal cancer characterized by high-frequency microsatellite instability with these characteristics in patients who had colorectal cancers with microsatellite stability. RESULT: We found high-frequency microsatellite instability in 17 percent of the colorectal cancers in 607 patients, and in a multivariate analysis, microsatellite instability was associated with a significant survival advantage independently of all standard prognostic factors, including tumor stage (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.27 to 0.67; P< 0.001). Furthermore, regardless of the depth of tumor invasion, colorectal cancers with high-frequency microsatellite instability had a decreased likelihood of metastasizing to regional lymph nodes (odds ratio, 0.33; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.21 to 0.53; P< 0.001) or distant organs (odds ratio, 0.49; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.27 to 0.89; P=0.02). CONCLUSION: High-frequency microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer is independently predictive of a relatively favorable outcome and, in addition, reduces the likelihood of metastases.

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 · 10.1056/nejm200001133420201

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 1,388

Metadata

Authors
Gryfe, R., Kim, H., Hsieh, E. T. K., Aronson, M. D., Holowaty, E. J., Bull, S. B., Redston, M., & Gallinger, S.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2000-01-13
Volume
342
Issue
2
Pages
69-77
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2018009295
Cited by
1,388
References
4
FWCI
46.12
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: Tumor Microsatellite Instability and Clinical Outcome in Young Patients with Colorectal Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm200001133420201
The paper
Gryfe, R., Kim, H., Hsieh, E. T. K., Aronson, M. D., Holowaty, E. J., Bull, S. B., Redston, M., & Gallinger, S. (2000). Tumor Microsatellite Instability and Clinical Outcome in Young Patients with Colorectal Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm200001133420201

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.