The DOI matches its Crossref record.
TNM Staging System of Colorectal Carcinoma: A Critical Appraisal of Challenging Issues
Abstract
Context.—Colorectal cancer is the leading cause of morbidity and death among gastrointestinal tumors and ranks fourth after lung, breast, and ovarian cancers. Despite a continuous refinement of the T (tumor), N (node), and M (metastasis) staging system to express disease extent and define prognosis, and eventually to guide treatment, the outcome of patients with colorectal cancer may vary considerably even within the same tumor stage. Therefore, the need for new factors, either morphologic or molecular, that could more precisely stratify patients into different risk categories is clearly warranted. Objectives.—To present the state of the art with regard to the colorectal cancer staging system and to discuss confusing and/or challenging issues, including the assessment of peritoneal membrane involvement, vascular invasion, tumor deposits, and pathologic tumor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Data Sources.—Literature review of relevant articles indexed in PubMed (US National Library of Medicine) and primary material from the authors' institutions. Conclusions.—Two emerging needs exist for the TNM system, namely, further stratification of patients with the same tumor stage and incorporation of nonanatomic factors, the latter including molecular and treatment factors. The identification and classification of morphologic features encountered in the pathologic examination of colorectal cancer specimens may be difficult and a source of subjective variability. Enhanced pathologic analysis, agreed-upon standard protocols, and standardization should improve the completeness and accuracy of pathology reports.
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
Cited by
Tumor budding in colorectal carcinoma: time to take notice
Mitrovic, B., Schaeffer, D. F., Riddell, R. H., & Kirsch, R. (2012) · Modern Pathology · doi:10.1038/modpathol.2012.94 · Cited by 289
Interpretable survival prediction for colorectal cancer using deep learning
Wulczyn, E., Steiner, D. F., Moran, M., Plass, M., Reihs, R., Tan, F., Flament-Auvigne, I., Brown, T., Regitnig, P., Chen, P.-H. C., et al. (2021) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-021-00427-2 · Cited by 231
Natural polyphenols in cancer therapy
Asensi, M., Ortega, A., Mena, S., Feddi, F., & Estrela, J. M. (2011) · Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences · doi:10.3109/10408363.2011.631268 · Cited by 174
Pathologist validation of a machine learning–derived feature for colon cancer risk stratification
L’Imperio, V., Wulczyn, E., Plass, M., Müller, H., Tamini, N., Gianotti, L., Zucchini, N., Reihs, R., Corrado, G. S., Webster, D. R., et al. (2023) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.54891 · Cited by 57
Metadata
- Authors
- Puppa, G., Sonzogni, A., Colombari, R., & Pelosi, G.
- Venue
- Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
- Published
- 2010-06-01
- Volume
- 134
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 837-852
- ISSN
- 0003-9985 (ISSN-L)
- 1543-2165
- OpenAlex
- W2166663163
- Cited by
- 203
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.98
- 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: TNM Staging System of Colorectal Carcinoma: A Critical Appraisal of Challenging Issues. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5858/134.6.837
- The paper
- Puppa, G., Sonzogni, A., Colombari, R., & Pelosi, G. (2010). TNM Staging System of Colorectal Carcinoma: A Critical Appraisal of Challenging Issues. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine. https://doi.org/10.5858/134.6.837
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.