Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 570

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A National Strategic Change in Treatment Policy for Rectal Cancer—Implementation of Total Mesorectal Excision as Routine Treatment in Norway. A National Audit

Wibe, Arne, Møller, Bjørn, Norstein, Jarle, Carlsen, Erik, Wiig, Johan N., Heald, Richard J., Langmark, Frøydis, Myrvold, Helge E., Søreide, Odd·2002·Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Rectal cancer surgery has been characterized by a high incidence of local recurrence, an occurrence which influences survival negatively. In Norway there was a growing recognition that local recurrence rates were related to surgeon performance and that surgeons applying a standardized surgical technique in the form of total mesorectal excision could achieve better results. This contrasts with the prevailing argument voiced by many opinion leaders that local recurrence rates and possibly survival rates can only be improved by adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment strategies. The Norwegian Rectal Cancer Project-initiated in 1993-aimed at improving the outcome of patients with rectal cancer by implementing total mesorectal excision as the standard rectal resection technique. METHODS: This observational national cohort study covers all new patients (3,319) with rectal cancer from a population of 4.5 million treated between November 1993 and August 1997. The main outcome measures were local recurrence, survival, and postoperative mortality and morbidity rates. The technique of total mesorectal excision was compared with conventional surgery. RESULTS: The proportion of patients undergoing total mesorectal excision was 78 percent in 1994, increasing to 92 percent in 1997. The observed local recurrence rate for patients undergoing a curative resection was 6 percent in the group treated by total mesorectal excision and 12 percent in the conventional surgery group. Four-year survival rate was 73 percent after total mesorectal excision and 60 percent after conventional surgery. Postoperative mortality rate was 3 percent and the anastomotic dehiscence rate was 10 percent. Radiotherapy was given to 5 percent and chemotherapy to 3 percent of the patients in the curative resection group. CONCLUSION: A refinement of the surgical resection technique for rectal cancer can be achieved on a national level, the technique of total mesorectal excision can be widely distributed, and surgery alone can give good results.

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 · 10.1007/s10350-004-6317-7

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.

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

Cited by

See all 570

Metadata

Authors
Wibe, A., Møller, B., Norstein, J., Carlsen, E., Wiig, J. N., Heald, R. J., Langmark, F., Myrvold, H. E., & Søreide, O.
Venue
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum
Published
2002-07
Volume
45
Issue
7
Pages
857-866
ISSN
0012-3706 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2072729991
Cited by
570
References
0
FWCI
8.50
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: A National Strategic Change in Treatment Policy for Rectal Cancer—Implementation of Total Mesorectal Excision as Routine Treatment in Norway. A National Audit. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10350-004-6317-7
The paper
Wibe, A., Møller, B., Norstein, J., Carlsen, E., Wiig, J. N., Heald, R. J., Langmark, F., Myrvold, H. E., & Søreide, O. (2002). A National Strategic Change in Treatment Policy for Rectal Cancer—Implementation of Total Mesorectal Excision as Routine Treatment in Norway. A National Audit. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-6317-7

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.