The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Impact of Margins on Outcome After Hepatic Resection for Colorectal Metastasis
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of margin width on long-term outcome after hepatic resection for colorectal metastasis. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The optimal margin width and its influence on long-term outcome after hepatic resection for colorectal metastasis are unclear. METHODS: All patients undergoing hepatic resection for colorectal metastasis from 1991 to 2003 were identified, and the prognostic influence of margin width and other clinicopathologic factors were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 1019 patients with a clear description of margin width were included. Analysis of margin width as a continuous variable suggested the following grouping: group I, involved (n = 112, 11%); group II, <1-10 mm (n = 563, 55%); and group III, >10 mm (n = 344, 33.7%). On univariate analysis, there was a statistically significant difference in median survival between all 3 groups: group II versus group I (42 vs. 30 months, P < 0.01) and group III versus group II (55 vs. 42 months, P < 0.01). Margin width >1 cm retained statistical significance (P < 0.01) on multivariate analysis after adjusting for established risk factors. After adjustment, survival in group III was significantly better than either group I or II (P < 0.01), but there was no difference between groups I and II (P = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that margin width of >1 cm is optimal and is an independent predictor of survival after hepatic resection for colorectal metastasis. However, subcentimeter resections are also associated with favorable outcome and should not preclude patients from undergoing 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
Tournigand, C., André, T., Achille, E., Lledo, G., Flesh, M., Mery-Mignard, D., Quinaux, E., Couteau, C., Buyse, M., Ganem, G., et al. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2004.05.113 · Cited by 2,915
Grothey, A., Sargent, D., Goldberg, R. M., & Schmoll, H.-J. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2004.11.037 · Cited by 1,070
Cited by
Folprecht, G., Gruenberger, T., Bechstein, W. O., Raab, H.-R., Lordick, F., Hartmann, J. T., Lang, H., Frilling, A., Stoehlmacher, J., Weitz, J., et al. (2010) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(09)70330-4 · Cited by 963
Taylor, A., Primrose, Langeberg, W., Kelsh, Mowat, F., Alexander, D., Choti, M., Poston, G., & Kanas, G. (2012) · Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.2147/clep.s34285 · Cited by 657
House, M. G., Ito, H., Gönen, M., Fong, Y., Allen, P. J., DeMatteo, R. P., Brennan, M. F., Blumgart, L. H., Jarnagin, W. R., & D'Angelica, M. I. (2010) · Journal of the American College of Surgeons · doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.12.040 · Cited by 517
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Are, C., Gonen, M., Zazzali, K., DeMatteo, R. P., Jarnagin, W. R., Fong, Y., Blumgart, L. H., & D'Angelica, M.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2007-08
- Volume
- 246
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 295-300
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2063685444
- Cited by
- 243
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 8.30
- 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 Impact of Margins on Outcome After Hepatic Resection for Colorectal Metastasis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e31811ea962
- The paper
- Are, C., Gonen, M., Zazzali, K., DeMatteo, R. P., Jarnagin, W. R., Fong, Y., Blumgart, L. H., & D'Angelica, M. (2007). The Impact of Margins on Outcome After Hepatic Resection for Colorectal Metastasis. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e31811ea962
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.