The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Prognostic Value of the Modifications of the Dukesʼ C Class of Colorectal Cancer: An Analysis of the NSABP Clinical Trials
Open accessAbstract
This study was carried out in an effort to resolve the dilemma created by three proposed modifications of the Dukes' C class of colorectal cancer. Each modification is based on a separate prognostic discriminant characterized by: the level of histologically positive nodes, the depth of tumor penetration, and the number of histologically positive nodes. Data were derived from 844 patients with Dukes' C lesions randomized into two prospective clinical trials of the NSABP; the mean time on study was 41 months. Analysis of the three modifications as independent variables without regard for possible confounding effects disclosed that each had a highly significant predictive capacity. When each discriminant was examined, this time adjusting for the contribution of the other two discriminants, the effect attributable to the level of positive nodes was markedly attenuated. Thus, the level of positive nodes provided little information over and above that of depth of tumor penetration and the number of positive nodes. Of the two latter discriminants, although both were significant predictors of survival, the number of positive nodes appeared to be the strongest factor. Using both depth of penetration and the number of positive nodes, a unique Dukes' C subset of patients could be identified with a prognosis at least as good as Dukes' B lesions; this group was characterized by partial tumor penetration and the presence of 1-4 positive nodes. It is concluded that both depth of penetration and the number of positive nodes represent appropriate modifications of the initial Dukes scheme, and one discriminant should not be used to the exclusion of the other. The data raise serious doubts relative to the propriety of newly proposed TNM classification schemes that fail to utilize the number of positive nodes as a predictive discriminant.
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
Brown, G., Richards, C. J., Bourne, M. W., Newcombe, R. G., Radcliffe, A. G., Dallimore, N. S., & Williams, G. T. (2003) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2272011747 · Cited by 872
Brown, G., Radcliffe, A. G., Newcombe, R. G., Dallimore, N. S., Bourne, M. W., & Williams, G. T. (2003) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.4034 · Cited by 734
Alternative clinical end points in rectal cancer—are we getting closer?
Glynne-Jones, R., Mawdsley, S., Pearce, T., & Buyse, M. (2006) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl173 · Cited by 88
Metadata
- Authors
- WOLMARK, N., FISHER, B., & WIEAND, H. S.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 1986-02
- Volume
- 203
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 115-122
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2071485106
- Cited by
- 201
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: The Prognostic Value of the Modifications of the Dukesʼ C Class of Colorectal Cancer: An Analysis of the NSABP Clinical Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00000658-198602000-00001
- The paper
- WOLMARK, N., FISHER, B., & WIEAND, H. S. (1986). The Prognostic Value of the Modifications of the Dukesʼ C Class of Colorectal Cancer: An Analysis of the NSABP Clinical Trials. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-198602000-00001
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.