The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Short-term Quality-of-Life Outcomes Following Laparoscopic-Assisted Colectomy vs Open Colectomy for Colon Cancer<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Trial</SUBTITLE>
Abstract
CONTEXT: Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) has emerged as the preferred minimally invasive surgical strategy for diseases of the colon. The safety and efficacy of LAC for colon cancer are unknown, and the nature and magnitude of any quality-of-life (QOL) benefit resulting from LAC for colon cancer is also unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare short-term QOL outcomes after LAC vs open colectomy for colon cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, randomized controlled trial (Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy [COST]). Between September 1994 and February 1999, 37 of 48 centers provided data for the QOL component of the trial for 449 consecutive patients with clinically resectable colon cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Scores on the Symptoms Distress Scale (SDS), Quality of Life Index, and a single-item global rating scale at 2 days, 2 weeks, and 2 months postoperative; duration of postoperative in-hospital analgesic use; and length of stay. RESULTS: Of 449 patients, 428 provided QOL data. In an intention-to-treat analysis comparing SDS pain intensity, SDS summary, QOL Index summary, and global rating scale scores at each time point, the only statistically significant difference observed between groups was the global rating scale score for 2 weeks postsurgery. The mean (median) global rating scale scores for 2 weeks postsurgery were 76.9 (80) for LAC vs 74.4 (75) for open colectomy (P =.009). While in the hospital, patients assigned to LAC required fewer days of both parenteral analgesics compared with patients assigned to open colectomy (mean [median], 3.2 [3] vs 4.0 [4] days; P<.001) and oral analgesics (mean [median], 1.9 [1] vs 2.2 [2] days; P =.03). CONCLUSION: Only minimal short-term QOL benefits were found with LAC for colon cancer compared with standard open colectomy. Until ongoing trials establish that LAC is as effective as open colectomy in preventing recurrence and death from colon cancer, this procedure should not be offered to patients with colon cancer.
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
A Comparison of Laparoscopically Assisted and Open Colectomy for Colon Cancer
(2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa032651 · Cited by 3,395
Gustafsson, U. O., Scott, M. J., Hubner, M., Nygren, J., Demartines, N., Francis, N., Rockall, T. A., Young‐Fadok, T. M., Hill, A. G., Soop, M., et al. (2019) · World Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00268-018-4844-y · Cited by 2,119
Boutron, I., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Ravaud, P., & for the CONSORT NPT Group* (2017) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m17-0046 · Cited by 1,538
Kang, S.-B., Park, J. W., Jeong, S.-Y., Nam, B. H., Choi, H. S., Kim, D.-W., Lim, S.-B., Lee, T.-G., Kim, D. Y., Kim, J.-S., et al. (2010) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70131-5 · Cited by 1,019
Kim, Y.-W., Baik, Y. H., Yun, Y. H., Nam, B. H., Kim, D. H., Choi, I. J., & Bae, J.-M. (2008) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e318185e62e · Cited by 608
Metadata
- Authors
- Weeks, J. C.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2002-01-16
- Volume
- 287
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 321
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2087507912
- Cited by
- 727
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 22.21
- 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: Short-term Quality-of-Life Outcomes Following Laparoscopic-Assisted Colectomy vs Open Colectomy for Colon Cancer<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Trial</SUBTITLE>. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.287.3.321
- The paper
- Weeks, J. C. (2002). Short-term Quality-of-Life Outcomes Following Laparoscopic-Assisted Colectomy vs Open Colectomy for Colon Cancer<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Trial</SUBTITLE>. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.3.321
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.