Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,215

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

Prognostic Significance of Tumor Regression After Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer

Rödel, Claus, Martus, Peter, Papadoupolos, Thomas, Füzesi, Laszlo, Klimpfinger, Martin, Fietkau, Rainer, Liersch, Torsten, Hohenberger, Werner, Raab, Rudolf, Sauer, Rolf, Wittekind, Christian·2005·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: We assessed the impact of tumor regression grading (TRG) and its value in correlation to established prognostic factors in a cohort of rectal carcinoma patients treated by preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients and Methods: TRG was evaluated on surgical specimens of 385 patients treated within the preoperative CRT arm of the CAO/ARO/AIO-94 trial: 50.4 Gy was delivered, fluorouracil was given in the first and fifth week, and surgery was performed 6 weeks thereafter. TRG was determined by the amount of viable tumor versus fibrosis, ranging from TRG 4 when no viable tumor cells were detected, to TRG 0 when fibrosis was completely absent. TRG 3 was defined as regression more than 50% with fibrosis outgrowing the tumor mass, TRG 2 was defined as regression less than 50%, and TRG 1 was defined basically as a morphologically unaltered tumor mass. We performed an initially unplanned, hypothesis-generating analysis with respect to the prognostic value of this TRG system. Results: TRG 4, 3, 2, 1, 0 was found in 10.4%, 52.2%, 13.8%, 15.3%, and 8.3% of the resected specimens, respectively. Five-year disease-free survival (DFS) after CRT and curative resection was 86% for TRG 4, 75% for grouped TRG 2 + 3, and 63% for grouped TRG 0 + 1 (P = .006). On multivariate analysis, the pathologic T category and the nodal status after CRT were the most important independent prognostic factors for DFS. Conclusion: In this exploratory analysis, complete (TRG 4) and intermediate pathologic response (TRG 2 + 3) suggested improved DFS after preoperative CRT. TRG assessment should be implemented in pathologic evaluation and prospectively validated in further studies.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2005.02.1329

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 1,215

Metadata

Authors
Rödel, C., Martus, P., Papadoupolos, T., Füzesi, L., Klimpfinger, M., Fietkau, R., Liersch, T., Hohenberger, W., Raab, R., Sauer, R., & Wittekind, C.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2005-12-01
Volume
23
Issue
34
Pages
8688-8696
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2143655828
Cited by
1,215
References
1
FWCI
16.82
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: Prognostic Significance of Tumor Regression After Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2005.02.1329
The paper
Rödel, C., Martus, P., Papadoupolos, T., Füzesi, L., Klimpfinger, M., Fietkau, R., Liersch, T., Hohenberger, W., Raab, R., Sauer, R., & Wittekind, C. (2005). Prognostic Significance of Tumor Regression After Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.02.1329

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.