The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A New Prognostic Staging System for Rectal Cancer
Open accessAbstract
In Brief Objective: To clarify the appropriateness of tumor “budding,” a quantifiable histologic variable, as 1 parameter in the construction of a new prognostic grading system for rectal cancer. Summary Background Data: Patient division according to an accurate prognostic prediction could enhance the effectiveness of postoperative adjuvant therapy and follow-up. Patients and Methods: Tumor budding was defined as an isolated cancer cell or a cluster composed of fewer than 5 cells in the invasive frontal region, and was divided into 2 grades based on its number within a microscopic field of ×250. We analyzed 2 discrete cohorts comprising 638 and 476 patients undergoing potentially curative surgery. Results: In the first cohort, high-grade budding (10 or more foci in a field) was observed in 30% of patients and was significantly associated with a lower 5-year survival rate (41%) than low-grade budding (84%). Similarly, in the second cohort, the 5-year survival rate was 43% in high-grade budding patients and 83% in low-grade budding patients. In both cohorts, multivariate analyses verified budding to be an independent prognosticator, together with nodal involvement and extramural spread. These 3 variables were given weighted scores, and the score range was divided to provide 5 prognostic groups (97%; 86%; 61%; 39%; 17% 5-year survival). The model was tested on the second cohort, and similar prognostic results were obtained. Conclusions: We propose that because of its relevance to prognosis and its reproducibility, budding is an excellent parameter for use in a grading system to provide a confident prediction of clinical outcome. Based on 2 discrete cohorts of rectal cancer patients, tumor “budding” was identified as a reproducible independent prognostic indicator that can improve the erroneous staging of advanced disease as early-stage disease. A grading system using the 3 parameters (tumor depth, nodal involvement, and budding) provided a wider spectrum of 5-year survival rates (18–98%).
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
Zlobec, I., & Lugli, A. (2010) · Oncotarget · doi:10.18632/oncotarget.199 · Cited by 331
New Criteria for Histologic Grading of Colorectal Cancer
Ueno, H., Kajiwara, Y., Shimazaki, H., Shinto, E., Hashiguchi, Y., Nakanishi, K., Maekawa, K., Katsurada, Y., Nakamura, T., Mochizuki, H., et al. (2012) · American Journal of Surgical Pathology · doi:10.1097/pas.0b013e318235edee · Cited by 227
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Ueno, H., Price, A. B., Wilkinson, K. H., Jass, J. R., Mochizuki, H., & Talbot, I. C.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2004-11
- Volume
- 240
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 832-839
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2083564498
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.76
- 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: A New Prognostic Staging System for Rectal Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.sla.0000143243.81014.f2
- The paper
- Ueno, H., Price, A. B., Wilkinson, K. H., Jass, J. R., Mochizuki, H., & Talbot, I. C. (2004). A New Prognostic Staging System for Rectal Cancer. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000143243.81014.f2
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.