The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Long-term follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer
Abstract
Background: Laparoscopic resection is used widely in the management of colorectal cancer; however, the data on long-term outcomes, particularly those related to rectal cancer, are limited. The results of long-term follow-up of the UK Medical Research Council trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer are presented. Methods: A total of 794 patients from 27 UK centres were randomized to laparoscopic or open surgery in a 2:1 ratio between 1996 and 2002. Long-term follow-up data were analysed to determine differences in survival outcomes and recurrences for intention-to-treat and actual treatment groups. Results: Median follow-up of all patients was 62·9 (interquartile range 22·9 − 92·8) months. There were no statistically significant differences between open and laparoscopic groups in overall survival (78·3 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 65·8 to 106·6) versus 82·7 (69·1 to 94·8) months respectively; P = 0·780) and disease-free survival (DFS) (89·5 (67·1 to 121·7) versus 77·0 (63·3 to 94·0) months; P = 0·589). In colonic cancer intraoperative conversions to open surgery were associated with worse overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 2·28, 95 per cent c.i. 1·47 to 3·53; P < 0·001) and DFS (HR 2·20, 1·31 to 3·67; P = 0·007). In terms of recurrence, no significant differences were observed by randomized procedure. However, at 10 years, right colonic cancers showed an increased propensity for local recurrence compared with left colonic cancers: 14·7 versus 5·2 per cent (difference 9·5 (95 per cent c.i. 2·3 to 16·6) per cent; P = 0·019). Conclusion: Long-term results continue to support the use of laparoscopic surgery for both colonic and rectal 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
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-citation(2009) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(08)70310-3 · Cited by 1,429
Jayne, D. G., Thorpe, H. C., Copeland, J., Quirke, P., Brown, J. M., & Guillou, P. J. (2010) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.7160 · Cited by 1,008
Self-citationWest, N. P., Hohenberger, W., Weber, K., Perrakis, A., Finan, P. J., & Quirke, P. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2009.24.1448 · Cited by 775
Self-citationHolm, T., Ljung, A., Häggmark, T., Jurell, G., & Lagergren, J. (2007) · Journal of British Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.5489 · Cited by 655
Cited by
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
Perioperative events influence cancer recurrence risk after surgery
Hiller, J. G., Perry, N. J., Poulogiannis, G., Riedel, B., & Sloan, E. K. (2018) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.194 · Cited by 556
Vogel, J. D., Felder, S. I., Bhama, A. R., Hawkins, A. T., Langenfeld, S. J., Shaffer, V. O., Thorsen, A. J., Weiser, M. R., Chang, G. J., Lightner, A. L., et al. (2022) · Diseases of the Colon & Rectum · doi:10.1097/dcr.0000000000002323 · Cited by 401
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Green, B. L., Marshall, H. C., Collinson, F., Quirke, P., Guillou, P., Jayne, D. G., & Brown, J. M.
- Venue
- Journal of British Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2013-01-01
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 75-82
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W1926849918
- Cited by
- 673
- References
- 18
- FWCI
- 21.02
- 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: Long-term follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.8945
- The paper
- Green, B. L., Marshall, H. C., Collinson, F., Quirke, P., Guillou, P., Jayne, D. G., & Brown, J. M. (2013). Long-term follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer. Journal of British Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.8945
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.
