Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Margin Clearance and Outcome in Resected Pancreatic Cancer

Chang, David K., Johns, Amber L., Merrett, Neil D., Gill, Anthony J., Colvin, Emily K., Scarlett, Christopher J., Nguyen, Nam Q., Leong, Rupert W.L., Cosman, Peter H., Kelly, Mark I., Sutherland, Robert L., Henshall, Susan M., Kench, James G., Biankin, Andrew V.·2009·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Current adjuvant therapies for pancreatic cancer (PC) are inconsistently used and only modestly effective. Because a high proportion of patients who undergo resection for PC likely harbor occult metastatic disease, any adjuvant trials assessing therapies such as radiotherapy directed at locoregional disease are significantly underpowered. Stratification based on the probability (and volume) of residual locoregional disease could play an important role in the design of future clinical trials assessing adjuvant radiotherapy. Patients and Methods: We assessed the relationships between margin involvement, the proximity to operative resection margins and outcome in a cohort of 365 patients who underwent operative resection for PC. Results: Microscopic involvement of a resection margin by tumor was associated with a poor prognosis. Stratifying the minimum clearance of resection margins by 0.5-mm increments demonstrated that although median survival was no different to clear margins based on these definitions, it was not until the resection margin was clear by more than 1.5 mm that optimal long-term survival was achieved. Conclusion: These data demonstrate that a margin clearance of more than 1.5 mm is important for long-term survival in a subgroup of patients. More aggressive therapeutic approaches that target locoregional disease such as radiotherapy may be beneficial in patients with close surgical margins. Stratification of patients for entry onto future clinical trials based on this criterion may identify those patients who benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy.

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.2008.20.5104

Cites

27 of 27 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 27 references

Cited by

See all 309

Metadata

Authors
Chang, D. K., Johns, A. L., Merrett, N. D., Gill, A. J., Colvin, E. K., Scarlett, C. J., Nguyen, N. Q., Leong, R. W. L., Cosman, P. H., Kelly, M. I., Sutherland, R. L., Henshall, S. M., Kench, J. G., & Biankin, A. V.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2009-06-10
Volume
27
Issue
17
Pages
2855-2862
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2168942492
Cited by
309
References
27
FWCI
10.14
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: Margin Clearance and Outcome in Resected Pancreatic Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2008.20.5104
The paper
Chang, D. K., Johns, A. L., Merrett, N. D., Gill, A. J., Colvin, E. K., Scarlett, C. J., Nguyen, N. Q., Leong, R. W. L., Cosman, P. H., Kelly, M. I., Sutherland, R. L., Henshall, S. M., Kench, J. G., & Biankin, A. V. (2009). Margin Clearance and Outcome in Resected Pancreatic Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2008.20.5104

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.