Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 703

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

Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Detected Tumor Response for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Predicts Survival Outcomes: MERCURY Experience

Patel, Uday B., Taylor, Fiona, Blomqvist, Lennart, George, Christopher, Evans, Hywel, Tekkis, Paris, Quirke, Philip, Sebag-Montefiore, David, Moran, Brendan, Heald, Richard, Guthrie, Ashley, Bees, Nicola, Swift, Ian, Pennert, Kjell, Brown, Gina·2011·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To assess magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and pathologic staging after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer in a prospectively enrolled, multicenter study. Methods: In a prospective cohort study, 111 patients who had rectal cancer treated by neoadjuvant therapy were assessed for response by MRI and pathology staging by T, N and circumferential resection margin (CRM) status. Tumor regression grade (TRG) was also assessed by MRI. Overall survival (OS) was estimated by using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine associations between staging of good and poor responders on MRI or pathology and survival outcomes after controlling for patient characteristics. Results: On multivariate analysis, the MRI-assessed TRG (mrTRG) hazard ratios (HRs) were independently significant for survival (HR, 4.40; 95% CI, 1.65 to 11.7) and disease-free survival (DFS; HR, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.22 to 8.80). Five-year survival for poor mrTRG was 27% versus 72% (P = .001), and DFS for poor mrTRG was 31% versus 64% (P = .007). Preoperative MRI-predicted CRM independently predicted local recurrence (LR; HR, 4.25; 95% CI, 1.45 to 12.51). Five-year survival for poor post-treatment pathologic T stage (ypT) was 39% versus 76% (P = .001); DFS for the same was 38% versus 84% (P = .001); and LR for the same was 27% versus 6% (P = .018). The 5-year survival for involved pCRM was 30% versus 59% (P = .001); DFS, 28 versus 62% (P = .02); and LR, 56% versus 10% (P = .001). Pathology node status did not predict outcomes. Conclusion: MRI assessment of TRG and CRM are imaging markers that predict survival outcomes for good and poor responders and provide an opportunity for the multidisciplinary team to offer additional treatment options before planning definitive surgery. Postoperative histopathology assessment of ypT and CRM but not post-treatment N status were important postsurgical predictors of outcome.

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.2011.34.9068

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 703

Metadata

Authors
Patel, U. B., Taylor, F., Blomqvist, L., George, C., Evans, H., Tekkis, P., Quirke, P., Sebag-Montefiore, D., Moran, B., Heald, R., Guthrie, A., Bees, N., Swift, I., Pennert, K., & Brown, G.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2011-10-01
Volume
29
Issue
28
Pages
3753-3760
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2154772456
Cited by
703
References
1
FWCI
13.37
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: Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Detected Tumor Response for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Predicts Survival Outcomes: MERCURY Experience. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2011.34.9068
The paper
Patel, U. B., Taylor, F., Blomqvist, L., George, C., Evans, H., Tekkis, P., Quirke, P., Sebag-Montefiore, D., Moran, B., Heald, R., Guthrie, A., Bees, N., Swift, I., Pennert, K., & Brown, G. (2011). Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Detected Tumor Response for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Predicts Survival Outcomes: MERCURY Experience. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2011.34.9068

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.