The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prognostic Significance of CpG Island Methylator Phenotype and Microsatellite Instability in Gastric Carcinoma
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: The influence of molecular characteristics in prognosis of gastric cancer remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of the CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) and microsatellite instability (MSI) in gastric cancer. Experimental Design: We studied the methylation profiles of tumor suppressor gene p16, DNA mismatch repair gene hMLH1, and four CpG islands (MINT1, MINT2, MINT25, and MINT31) using bisulfite/methylation–specific PCR, and MSI using five microsatellite markers in 83 resected gastric carcinomas. The CIMP and MSI status were compared with clinicopathologic features and overall survival. Results: Concordant methylation of multiple genes/loci (CIMP-high) was present in 31% of tumors and in 4% of non-neoplastic mucosa, CIMP-low in 55% and 17%, and CIMP-negative in 13% and 79%, respectively (P < 0.001). The prevalence of MSI-high, MSI-low, and MS-stable in tumor was 19%, 17%, and 64%, respectively. MSI status was closely associated with hMLH1 hypermethylation and CIMP status (P = 0.001). In univariate analysis, overall survival was predicted by pathologic stage (P < 0.0001), R0 resection (P = 0.0002), MINT31 methylation (P = 0.04), and CIMP-high status (P = 0.04). MSI status of tumor was not a significant predictor of prognosis. Although CIMP status seemed to be a prognostic predictor of gastric cancer, only pathologic stage remained a significant predictor of prognosis on multivariate analysis (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Our results indicate that there is an association between CIMP status and MSI status in gastric cancer. Concordant methylation of multiple genes/loci (CIMP-H) is associated with better survival but is not an independent predictor of prognosis in resected gastric cancer.
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
Methylation of the oestrogen receptor CpG island links ageing and neoplasia in human colon
Issa, J.-P. J., Ottaviano, Y. L., Celano, P., Hamilton, S. R., Davidson, N. E., & Baylin, S. B. (1994) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng0894-536 · Cited by 1,191
Self-citation
Cited by
Molecular analysis of gastric cancer identifies subtypes associated with distinct clinical outcomes
Cristescu, R., Lee, J., Nebozhyn, M., Kim, K.-M., Ting, J. C., Wong, S. S., Liu, J., Yue, Y. G., Wang, J., Yu, K., et al. (2015) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/nm.3850 · Cited by 2,223
Molecular classification of gastric cancer
Chia, N.-Y., & Tan, P. (2016) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdw040 · Cited by 375
GRØNBÆK, K., HOTHER, C., & JONES, P. A. (2007) · APMIS · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0463.2007.apm_636.xml.x · Cited by 366
Polom, K., Marano, L., Marrelli, D., De Luca, R., Roviello, G., Savelli, V, Tan, P., & Roviello, F. (2018) · Journal of British Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.10663 · Cited by 292
Metadata
- Authors
- An, C., Choi, I.-S., Yao, J. C., Worah, S., Xie, K., Mansfield, P. F., Ajani, J. A., Rashid, A., Hamilton, S. R., & Wu, T.-T.
- Venue
- Clinical Cancer Research
- Published
- 2005-01-15
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 656-663
- ISSN
- 1078-0432 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-3265
- OpenAlex
- W2132327532
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Prognostic Significance of CpG Island Methylator Phenotype and Microsatellite Instability in Gastric Carcinoma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1158/1078-0432.656.11.2
- The paper
- An, C., Choi, I.-S., Yao, J. C., Worah, S., Xie, K., Mansfield, P. F., Ajani, J. A., Rashid, A., Hamilton, S. R., & Wu, T.-T. (2005). Prognostic Significance of CpG Island Methylator Phenotype and Microsatellite Instability in Gastric Carcinoma. Clinical Cancer Research. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.656.11.2
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.