The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Microsatellite instability has a positive prognostic impact on stage II colorectal cancer after complete resection: results from a large, consecutive Norwegian series
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Microsatellite instability (MSI) was suggested as a marker for good prognosis in colorectal cancer in 1993 and a systematic review from 2005 and a meta-analysis from 2010 support the initial observation. We here assess the prognostic impact and prevalence of MSI in different stages in a consecutive, population-based series from a single hospital in Oslo, Norway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 1274 patients, 952 underwent major resection of which 805 were included in analyses of MSI prevalence and 613 with complete resection in analyses of outcome. Formalin-fixed tumor tissue was used for PCR-based MSI analyses. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of MSI was 14%, highest in females (19%) and in proximal colon cancer (29%). Five-year relapse-free survival (5-year RFS) was 67% and 55% (P = 0.030) in patients with MSI and MSS tumors, respectively, with the hazard ratio (HR) equal to 1.60 (P = 0.045) in multivariate analysis. The improved outcome was confined to stage II patients who had 5-year RFS of 74% and 56% respectively (P = 0.010), HR = 2.02 (P = 0.040). Examination of 12 or more lymph nodes was significantly associated with proximal tumor location (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MSI has an independent positive prognostic impact on stage II colorectal cancer patients after complete 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
Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK)
McShane, L. M., Altman, D. G., Sauerbrei, W., Taube, S. E., Gion, M., & Clark, G. M. (2005) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/dji237 · Cited by 2,162
Cited by
Petrelli, F., Tomasello, G., Borgonovo, K., Ghidini, M., Turati, L., Dallera, P., Passalacqua, R., Sgroi, G., & Barni, S. (2017) · JAMA Oncology · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.4227 · Cited by 729
Drug resistance and new therapies in colorectal cancer
Jeught, K. V. D., Xu, H.-C., Li, Y.-J., Lu, X.-B., & Ji, G. (2018) · World Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.3748/wjg.v24.i34.3834 · Cited by 597
Biomarker-guided therapy for colorectal cancer: strength in complexity
Sveen, A., Kopetz, S., & Lothe, R. A. (2020) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41571-019-0241-1 · Cited by 320
Self-citationDomingo, E., Freeman-Mills, L., Rayner, E., Glaire, M., Briggs, S., Vermeulen, L., Fessler, E., Medema, J. P., Boot, A., Morreau, H., et al. (2016) · The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1016/s2468-1253(16)30014-0 · Cited by 308
Self-citationThe evolving role of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer: A review
Gelsomino, F., Barbolini, M., Spallanzani, A., Pugliese, G., & Cascinu, S. (2016) · Cancer Treatment Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.10.005 · Cited by 313
Metadata
- Authors
- Merok, M. A., Ahlquist, T., Røyrvik, E. C., Tufteland, K. F., Hektoen, M., Sjo, O. H., Mala, T., Svindland, A., Lothe, R. A., & Nesbakken, A.
- Venue
- Annals of Oncology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-05
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1274-1282
- ISSN
- 0923-7534 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2042498810
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.18
- 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: Microsatellite instability has a positive prognostic impact on stage II colorectal cancer after complete resection: results from a large, consecutive Norwegian series. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/annonc/mds614
- The paper
- Merok, M. A., Ahlquist, T., Røyrvik, E. C., Tufteland, K. F., Hektoen, M., Sjo, O. H., Mala, T., Svindland, A., Lothe, R. A., & Nesbakken, A. (2013). Microsatellite instability has a positive prognostic impact on stage II colorectal cancer after complete resection: results from a large, consecutive Norwegian series. Annals of Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mds614
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.
