Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 412

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pancreatic Cancer Surgery in the New Millennium: Better Prediction of Outcome

Hartwig, Werner, Hackert, Thilo, Hinz, Ulf, Gluth, Alexander, Bergmann, Frank, Strobel, Oliver, Büchler, Markus W., Werner, Jens·2011·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surgery is the only therapy with potentially curative intention in pancreatic cancer. This analysis aimed to determine prognostic parameters in a patient cohort with resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma with a special focus on the revised R1-definition. METHODS: Between October 2001 and August 2009, data from 1071 consecutively resected patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma were prospectively collected in an electronical database. Parameters tested for survival prediction in univariate analysis included patient, tumor, and resection characteristics as well as adjuvant therapy. The parameters with significant results were used for multivariate survival analysis. Identified parameters with positive or negative prognostic effect were used to define risk groups and to assess the effects on patient survival. RESULTS: Age, ASA-score, CEA and CA19-9 levels, preoperative insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, T-, N-, M-, R-, G-tumor classification, advanced disease, and LNR were all significant in univariate analysis, whereas gender, NYHA score, BMI, insurance status, type of surgical procedure, and adjuvant therapy were not. In multivariate analysis, age ≥70 years, preoperative insulin-dependent diabetes, CA19-9 ≥400 U/mL, T4-, M1- or G3-status, and LNR > 0.2 were independent negative predictors, whereas Tis/T1/T2-status, G1-differentiation, and R0-status (revised definition) were independently associated with good prognosis. Using these risk factors, patients were stratified into 4 risk-groups with significantly different prognosis; 5-year survival varied between 0% and 54.5%. Risk stratification resulted in improved survival prognostication within the predominant AJCC IIA and AJCC IIB stages. CONCLUSIONS: A newly defined prognostic profiling including the revised R1-definition discriminates survival of patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma better than the AJCC staging system, and may be of particular relevance for patient-adjusted therapy in the heterogeneous group of AJCC stage II tumors.

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/sla.0b013e31821fd334

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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 412

Metadata

Authors
Hartwig, W., Hackert, T., Hinz, U., Gluth, A., Bergmann, F., Strobel, O., Büchler, M. W., & Werner, J.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2011-08
Volume
254
Issue
2
Pages
311-319
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2090803746
Cited by
412
References
1
FWCI
12.55
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: Pancreatic Cancer Surgery in the New Millennium: Better Prediction of Outcome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e31821fd334
The paper
Hartwig, W., Hackert, T., Hinz, U., Gluth, A., Bergmann, F., Strobel, O., Büchler, M. W., & Werner, J. (2011). Pancreatic Cancer Surgery in the New Millennium: Better Prediction of Outcome. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e31821fd334

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.