The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What Is the Role for the Circumferential Margin in the Modern Treatment of Rectal Cancer?
Abstract
Purpose: Treatment of rectal cancer has changed dramatically over the last decade. The worldwide introduction of total mesorectal excision in combination with the increasing use of radio(chemo)–therapy has led to an improved prognosis. One of the main prognostic factors in rectal cancer is the circumferential resection margin (CRM). Since the initial description of its clinical importance in 1986, the involvement of this margin (also called lateral or radial resection margin) has been associated with a poor prognosis. Methods: In the current review, the evidence for the importance of the CRM in more than 17,500 patients is reviewed, and the relevance of this assessment to modern treatment is assessed. Results: We demonstrate that, after neoadjuvant therapy (both radiotherapy and radiochemotherapy), the predictive value of the CRM for local recurrence is significantly higher than when no preoperative therapy has been applied (hazard ratio [HR] = 6.3 v 2.0, respectively; P < .05). Furthermore, involvement of the CRM is a powerful predictor of both development of distant metastases (HR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.9 to 4.3) and survival (HR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3 to 2.3). In addition to the prognostic data, this review describes different modes of margin involvement, exact definitions, and factors influencing its presence. Conclusion: CRM involvement is one of the key factors in rectal cancer treatment.
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
Preoperative Radiotherapy Combined with Total Mesorectal Excision for Resectable Rectal Cancer
Kapiteijn, E., Marijnen, C. A. M., Nagtegaal, I. D., Putter, H., Steup, W. H., Wiggers, T., Rutten, H. J. T., Pahlman, L., Glimelius, B., van Krieken, J. H. J. M., et al. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa010580 · Cited by 4,205
Self-citationAlternative clinical end points in rectal cancer—are we getting closer?
Glynne-Jones, R., Mawdsley, S., Pearce, T., & Buyse, M. (2006) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl173 · Cited by 88
Cited by
Brenner, H., Kloor, M., & Pox, C. P. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)61649-9 · Cited by 2,762
de Lacy, A. M., Rattner, D. W., Adelsdorfer, C., Tasende, M. M., Fernández, M., Delgado, S., Sylla, P., & Martínez-Palli, G. (2013) · Surgical Endoscopy · doi:10.1007/s00464-013-2872-0 · Cited by 301
Metadata
- Authors
- Nagtegaal, I. D., & Quirke, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2008-01-10
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 303-312
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2017132889
- Cited by
- 1,006
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 22.48
- 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: What Is the Role for the Circumferential Margin in the Modern Treatment of Rectal Cancer? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2007.12.7027
- The paper
- Nagtegaal, I. D., & Quirke, P. (2008). What Is the Role for the Circumferential Margin in the Modern Treatment of Rectal Cancer? Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.12.7027
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.