Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 280

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Tumor Budding is a Strong and Reproducible Prognostic Marker in T3N0 Colorectal Cancer

Wang, Lai Mun, Kevans, David, Mulcahy, Hugh, O'Sullivan, Jacintha, Fennelly, David, Hyland, John, O'Donoghue, Diarmuid, Sheahan, Kieran·2009·American Journal of Surgical Pathology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Tumor budding along the advancing front of colorectal adenocarcinoma is an early event in the metastatic process. A reproducible, prognostic budding scoring system based on outcomes in early stage colorectal cancer has not been established. DESIGN: One hundred twenty-eight T3N0M0 colorectal carcinoma patients with known outcome were identified. Tumor budding was defined as isolated tumor cells or clusters of <5 cells at the invasive tumor front. Tumor bud counts were generated in 5 regions at 200x by 2 pathologists (conventional bud count method). The median bud count per case was used to divide cases into low (median=0) and high budding (median > or =1) groups. Forty cases were reevaluated to assess reproducibility using the conventional and a novel rapid bud count method. RESULTS: Fifty-seven (45%) carcinomas had high and 71 (55%) had low budding scores. High budding was associated with an infiltrative growth pattern (P<0.0001) and lymphovascular invasion (P=0.005). Five-year cancer-specific survival was significantly poorer in high compared with low budding groups: 63% versus 91%, respectively, P<0.0001. Multivariate analysis demonstrated tumor budding to be independently prognostic (hazard ratio=4.76, P<0.001). Interobserver agreement was at least equivalent comparing the conventional to the rapid bud count methods: 87.5% agreement (kappa=0.75) versus 92.5% agreement (kappa=0.85), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor budding is a strong, reproducible, and independent prognostic marker of outcome that is easily assessed on hematoxylin and eosin slides. This may be useful for identifying the subset of T3N0M0 patients at high risk of recurrence who may benefit from adjuvant therapy.

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/pas.0b013e318184cd55

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

Metadata

Authors
Wang, L. M., Kevans, D., Mulcahy, H., O'Sullivan, J., Fennelly, D., Hyland, J., O'Donoghue, D., & Sheahan, K.
Venue
American Journal of Surgical Pathology
Published
2009-01
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
134-141
ISSN
0147-5185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2012885850
Cited by
280
References
0
FWCI
6.16
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 Budding is a Strong and Reproducible Prognostic Marker in T3N0 Colorectal Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/pas.0b013e318184cd55
The paper
Wang, L. M., Kevans, D., Mulcahy, H., O'Sullivan, J., Fennelly, D., Hyland, J., O'Donoghue, D., & Sheahan, K. (2009). Tumor Budding is a Strong and Reproducible Prognostic Marker in T3N0 Colorectal Cancer. American Journal of Surgical Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1097/pas.0b013e318184cd55

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.