Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 172

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

Clinical Examination Following Preoperative Chemoradiation for Rectal Cancer Is Not a Reliable Surrogate End Point

Open access
Guillem, Jose G., Chessin, David B., Shia, Jinru, Moore, Harvey G., Mazumdar, Madhu, Bernard, Bianca, Paty, Philip B., Saltz, Leonard, Minsky, Bruce D., Weiser, Martin R., Temple, Larissa K.F., Cohen, Alfred M., Wong, W. Douglas·2005·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Clinical assessment of rectal cancer response to preoperative combined-modality therapy (CMT) using digital rectal examination (DRE) has been proposed as a means of assessing efficacy of therapy. However, because the accuracy of this approach has not been established, we conducted a prospective analysis to determine the operating surgeon's ability to assess response using DRE. Patients and Methods: Ninety-four prospectively accrued patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (T3/4 or N1) were evaluated with DRE and sigmoidoscopy in order to determine the following tumor characteristics: size, location, mobility, morphology, and circumference. Following preoperative CMT (50.40 Gy with fluorouracil-based chemotherapy) and under general anesthesia, the same surgeon estimated tumor response based on changes in these tumor characteristics, assessed via DRE. Percent pathologic tumor response was determined prospectively by a single pathologist using whole mount sections of the resected cancer. Results: Clinical assessment using DRE underestimated pathologic response in 73 cases (78%). In addition, DRE was able to identify only 3 of 14 cases (21%) with a pathologic complete response. There were no clinical overestimates of response. None of the clinicopathologic tumor characteristics examined had a significant impact on DRE estimation of response. Conclusion: Clinical examination underestimates the extent of rectal cancer response to preoperative CMT. Given the inaccuracy of DRE following preoperative CMT, it should not be used as a sole means of assessing efficacy of therapy nor for selecting patients following CMT for local surgical therapies.

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.2005.06.114

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 172

Metadata

Authors
Guillem, J. G., Chessin, D. B., Shia, J., Moore, H. G., Mazumdar, M., Bernard, B., Paty, P. B., Saltz, L., Minsky, B. D., Weiser, M. R., Temple, L. K. F., Cohen, A. M., & Wong, W. D.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2005-05-20
Volume
23
Issue
15
Pages
3475-3479
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2108083343
Cited by
172
References
1
FWCI
2.69
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: Clinical Examination Following Preoperative Chemoradiation for Rectal Cancer Is Not a Reliable Surrogate End Point. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2005.06.114
The paper
Guillem, J. G., Chessin, D. B., Shia, J., Moore, H. G., Mazumdar, M., Bernard, B., Paty, P. B., Saltz, L., Minsky, B. D., Weiser, M. R., Temple, L. K. F., Cohen, A. M., & Wong, W. D. (2005). Clinical Examination Following Preoperative Chemoradiation for Rectal Cancer Is Not a Reliable Surrogate End Point. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.06.114

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.