Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 393

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of Clinical Complete Response After Chemoradiation for Rectal Cancer with Digital Rectal Examination, Endoscopy, and MRI: Selection for Organ-Saving Treatment

Open access
Maas, Monique, Lambregts, Doenja M. J., Nelemans, Patty J., Heijnen, Luc A., Martens, Milou H., Leijtens, Jeroen W. A., Sosef, Meindert, Hulsewé, Karel W. E., Hoff, Christiaan, Breukink, Stephanie O., Stassen, Laurents, Beets-Tan, Regina G. H., Beets, Geerard L.·2015·Annals of Surgical Oncology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The response to chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for rectal cancer can be assessed by clinical examination, consisting of digital rectal examination (DRE) and endoscopy, and by MRI. A high accuracy is required to select complete response (CR) for organ-preserving treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the value of clinical examination (endoscopy with or without biopsy and DRE), T2W-MRI, and diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) for the detection of CR after CRT. METHODS: This prospective cohort study in a university hospital recruited 50 patients who underwent clinical assessment (DRE, endoscopy with or without biopsy), T2W-MRI, and DWI at 6-8 weeks after CRT. Confidence levels were used to score the likelihood of CR. The reference standard was histopathology or recurrence-free interval of >12 months in cases of wait-and-see approaches. Diagnostic performance was calculated by area under the receiver operator characteristics curve, with corresponding sensitivities and specificities. Strategies were assessed and compared by use of likelihood ratios. RESULTS: Seventeen (34 %) of 50 patients had a CR. Areas under the curve were 0.88 (0.78-1.00) for clinical assessment and 0.79 (0.66-0.92) for T2W-MRI and DWI. Combining the modalities led to a posttest probability for predicting a CR of 98 %. Conversely, when all modalities indicated residual tumor, 15 % of patients still experienced CR. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical assessment after CRT is the single most accurate modality for identification of CR after CRT. Addition of MRI with DWI further improves the diagnostic performance, and the combination can be recommended as the optimal strategy for a safe and accurate selection of CR after CRT.

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 · 10.1245/s10434-015-4687-9

Cites

24 of 24 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 24 references

Cited by

See all 393

Metadata

Authors
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., Stassen, L., Beets-Tan, R. G. H., & Beets, G. L.
Venue
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published
2015-07-22
Volume
22
Issue
12
Pages
3873-3880
ISSN
  • 1068-9265 (ISSN-L)
  • 1534-4681
OpenAlex
W1764231357
Cited by
393
References
24
FWCI
8.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Assessment of Clinical Complete Response After Chemoradiation for Rectal Cancer with Digital Rectal Examination, Endoscopy, and MRI: Selection for Organ-Saving Treatment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1245/s10434-015-4687-9
The paper
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., Stassen, L., Beets-Tan, R. G. H., & Beets, G. L. (2015). Assessment of Clinical Complete Response After Chemoradiation for Rectal Cancer with Digital Rectal Examination, Endoscopy, and MRI: Selection for Organ-Saving Treatment. Annals of Surgical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4687-9

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.