The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Impact of Number of Nodes Retrieved on Outcome in Patients With Rectal Cancer
Abstract
PURPOSE: We postulated that the pathologic evaluation of the lymph nodes of surgical specimens from patients with rectal cancer can have a substantial impact on time to relapse and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from 1,664 patients with T3, T4, or node-positive rectal cancer treated in a national intergroup trial of adjuvant therapy with chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Associations between the number of lymph nodes found by the pathologist in the surgical specimen and the time to relapse and survival outcomes were investigated. RESULTS: Patients were divided into groups by nodal status and the corresponding quartiles of numbers of nodes examined. The number of nodes examined was significantly associated with time to relapse and survival among patients who were node-negative. For the first through fourth quartiles, the 5-year relapse rates were 0.37, 0.34, 0.26, and 0.19 (P = .003), and the 5-year survival rates were 0.68, 0.73, 0.72, and 0.82 (P = .02). No significant differences were found by quartiles among patients determined to be node-positive. We propose that observed differences are primarily related to the incorrect determination of nodal status in node-negative patients. Approximately 14 nodes need to be studied to define nodal status accurately. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the pathologic assessment of lymph nodes in surgical specimens is often inaccurate and that examining greater number of nodes increases the likelihood of proper staging. Some patients who might benefit from adjuvant therapy are misclassified as node-negative due to incomplete sampling of lymph nodes.
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
Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations
Kaplan, E. L., & Meier, P. (1992) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_25 · Cited by 45,181
Regression Models and Life-Tables
Cox, D. R. (1972) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1972.tb00899.x · Cited by 39,793
Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations
Kaplan, E. L., & Meier, P. (1958) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452 · Cited by 39,158
Regression Models and Life-Tables
Cox, D. R. (1992) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_37 · Cited by 26,297
(2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40618-3 · Cited by 17,242
Nonparametric Statistical Methods
(1999) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1999.10485954 · Cited by 6,090
Asymptotically Efficient Rank Invariant Test Procedures
Peto, R., & Peto, J. (1972) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2344317 · Cited by 3,393
LOCAL RECURRENCE OF RECTAL ADENOCARCINOMA DUE TO INADEQUATE SURGICAL RESECTION
Quirke, P., Dixon, M. F., Durdey, P., & Williams, N. S. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)92612-7 · Cited by 1,973
Rectal Cancer: The Basingstoke Experience of Total Mesorectal Excision, 1978-1997
Heald, R. J., Moran, B. J., Ryall, R. D. H., Sexton, R., & MacFarlane, J. K. (1998) · Archives of Surgery · doi:10.1001/archsurg.133.8.894 · Cited by 1,399
Prognostic Factors in Prostate Cancer: College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999
Bostwick, D. G., Grignon, D. J., Hammond, M. E. H., Amin, M. B., Cohen, M., Crawford, D., Gospadarowicz, M., Kaplan, R. S., Miller, D. S., Montironi, R., et al. (2000) · Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.5858/2000-124-0995-pfipc · Cited by 1,239
Cited by
Capirci, C., Valentini, V., Cionini, L., De Paoli, A., Rodel, C., Glynne-Jones, R., Coco, C., Romano, M., Mantello, G., Palazzi, S., et al. (2008) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.12.019 · Cited by 445
Labianca, R., Beretta, G. D., Kildani, B., Milesi, L., Merlin, F., Mosconi, S., Pessi, M. A., Prochilo, T., Quadri, A., Gatta, G., et al. (2010) · Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology · doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2010.01.010 · Cited by 409
Colorectal Carcinoma: Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Molecular Features
Compton, C. C. (2003) · Modern Pathology · doi:10.1097/01.mp.0000062859.46942.93 · Cited by 403
Self-citationArtinyan, A., Orcutt, S. T., Anaya, D. A., Richardson, P., Chen, G. J., & Berger, D. H. (2015) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000000854 · Cited by 345
Adjuvant Treatment of Colorectal Cancer
Wolpin, B. M., Meyerhardt, J. A., Mamon, H. J., & Mayer, R. J. (2007) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.57.3.168 · Cited by 306
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Tepper, J. E., O’Connell, M. J., Niedzwiecki, D., Hollis, D., Compton, C., Benson, A. B., Cummings, B., Gunderson, L., Macdonald, J. S., & Mayer, R. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2001-01-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 157-163
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2128146669
- Cited by
- 560
- References
- 18
- FWCI
- 10.04
- 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: Impact of Number of Nodes Retrieved on Outcome in Patients With Rectal Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2001.19.1.157
- The paper
- Tepper, J. E., O’Connell, M. J., Niedzwiecki, D., Hollis, D., Compton, C., Benson, A. B., Cummings, B., Gunderson, L., Macdonald, J. S., & Mayer, R. J. (2001). Impact of Number of Nodes Retrieved on Outcome in Patients With Rectal Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.1.157
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.
