The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer
Abstract
Introduction: The UK Medical Research Council CLASICC trial assessed the safety and efficacy of laparoscopically assisted surgery in comparison with open surgery for colorectal cancer. The results of the 5-year follow-up analysis are presented. Methods: Five-year outcomes were analysed and included overall and disease-free survival, and local, distant and wound/port-site recurrences. Two exploratory analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of age (70 years or less, or more than 70 years) on overall survival between the two groups, and the effect of the learning curve. Results: No differences were found between laparoscopically assisted and open surgery in terms of overall survival, disease-free survival, and local and distant recurrence. Wound/port-site recurrence rates in the laparoscopic arm remained stable at 2·4 per cent. Conversion to open operation was associated with significantly worse overall but not disease-free survival, which was most marked in the early follow-up period. The effect of surgery did not differ between the age groups, and surgical experience did not impact on the 5-year results. Conclusion: The 5-year analyses confirm the oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for both colonic and rectal cancer. The use of laparoscopic surgery to maximize short-term outcomes does not compromise the long-term oncological results. Registration number: ISRCTN74883561 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).
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
Cites
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
Guillou, P. J., Quirke, P., Thorpe, H., Walker, J., Jayne, D. G., Smith, A. M., Heath, R. M., & Brown, J. M. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66545-2 · Cited by 3,064
Self-citationLacy, A. M., García-Valdecasas, J. C., Delgado, S., Castells, A., Taurá, P., Piqué, J. M., & Visa, J. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)09290-5 · Cited by 2,441
Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial
(2005) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(05)70221-7 · Cited by 2,316
Hohenberger, W., Weber, K., Matzel, K., Papadopoulos, T., & Merkel, S. (2009) · Colorectal Disease · doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01735.x · Cited by 1,636
Jayne, D. G., Guillou, P. J., Thorpe, H., Quirke, P., Copeland, J., Smith, A. M. H., Heath, R. M., & Brown, J. M. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2006.09.7758 · Cited by 1,497
Self-citationMeta-analysis of short-term outcomes after laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer
Abraham, N. S., Young, J. M., & Solomon, M. J. (2004) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.4640 · Cited by 601
Laparoscopically Assisted vs Open Colectomy for Colon Cancer: A Meta-analysis
(2007) · Archives of Surgery · doi:10.1001/archsurg.142.3.298 · Cited by 536
Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
Aziz, O., Constantinides, V., Tekkis, P. P., Athanasiou, T., Purkayastha, S., Paraskeva, P., Darzi, A. W., & Heriot, A. G. (2006) · Annals of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1245/aso.2006.05.045 · Cited by 392
Jayne, D. G., Brown, J. M., Thorpe, H., Walker, J., Quirke, P., & Guillou, P. J. (2005) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.4989 · Cited by 364
Self-citation
Cited by
Breast Cancer, Version 4.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology
Gradishar, W. J., Anderson, B. O., Balassanian, R., Blair, S. L., Burstein, H. J., Cyr, A., Elias, A. D., Farrar, W. B., Forero, A., Giordano, S. H., et al. (2018) · Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network · doi:10.6004/jnccn.2018.0012 · Cited by 1,609
Green, B. L., Marshall, H. C., Collinson, F., Quirke, P., Guillou, P., Jayne, D. G., & Brown, J. M. (2013) · Journal of British Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.8945 · Cited by 673
Self-citationYamamoto, S., Inomata, M., Katayama, H., Mizusawa, J., Etoh, T., Konishi, F., Sugihara, K., Watanabe, M., Moriya, Y., & Kitano, S. (2014) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000000499 · Cited by 349
Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer
Breukink, S., Pierie, J.-P., & Wiggers, T. (2006) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005200.pub2 · Cited by 287
Collinson, F. J., Jayne, D. G., Pigazzi, A., Tsang, C., Barrie, J. M., Edlin, R., Garbett, C., Guillou, P., Holloway, I., Howard, H., et al. (2012) · International Journal of Colorectal Disease · doi:10.1007/s00384-011-1313-6 · Cited by 255
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Jayne, D. G., Thorpe, H. C., Copeland, J., Quirke, P., Brown, J. M., & Guillou, P. J.
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-07-13
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1638-1645
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2139094974
- Cited by
- 1,008
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 27.78
- 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: Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.7160
- The paper
- Jayne, D. G., Thorpe, H. C., Copeland, J., Quirke, P., Brown, J. M., & Guillou, P. J. (2010). Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.7160
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.
