Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 201

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 access
WOLMARK, NORMAN, FISHER, BERNARD, WIEAND, H. SAMUEL·1986·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00000658-198602000-00001

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.

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

Cited by

See all 201

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.