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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Preoperative versus Postoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer
Sauer, R., Becker, H., Hohenberger, W., Rödel, C., Wittekind, C., Fietkau, R., Martus, P., Tschmelitsch, J., Hager, E., Hess, C. F., et al. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa040694 · Cited by 6,050
Cited by
Maas, M., Lambregts, D. M. J., Nelemans, P. J., Heijnen, L. A., Martens, M. H., Leijtens, J. W. A., Sosef, M., Hulsewé, K. W. E., Hoff, C., Breukink, S. O., et al. (2015) · Annals of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1245/s10434-015-4687-9 · Cited by 393
Glynne-Jones, R., & Hughes, R. (2012) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.8732 · Cited by 256
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.