The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Patient survival after D1 and D2 resections for gastric cancer: long-term results of the MRC randomized surgical trial
Open accessAbstract
Controversy still exists on the optimal surgical resection for potentially curable gastric cancer. Much better long-term survival has been reported in retrospective/non-randomized studies with D2 resections that involve a radical extended regional lymphadenectomy than with the standard D1 resections. In this paper we report the long-term survival of patients entered into a randomized study, with follow-up to death or 3 years in 96% of patients and a median follow-up of 6.5 years. In this prospective trial D1 resection (removal of regional perigastric nodes) was compared with D2 resection (extended lymphadenectomy to include level 1 and 2 regional nodes). Central randomization followed a staging laparotomy. Out of 737 patients with histologically proven gastric adenocarcinoma registered, 337 patients were ineligible by staging laparotomy because of advanced disease and 400 were randomized. The 5-year survival rates were 35% for D1 resection and 33% for D2 resection (difference -2%, 95% CI = -12%-8%). There was no difference in the overall 5-year survival between the two arms (HR = 1.10, 95% CI 0.87-1.39, where HR > 1 implies a survival benefit to D1 surgery). Survival based on death from gastric cancer as the event was similar in the D1 and D2 groups (HR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.79-1.39) as was recurrence-free survival (HR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.82-1.29). In a multivariate analysis, clinical stages II and III, old age, male sex and removal of spleen and pancreas were independently associated with poor survival. These findings indicate that the classical Japanese D2 resection offers no survival advantage over D1 surgery. However, the possibility that D2 resection without pancreatico-splenectomy may be better than standard D1 resection cannot be dismissed by the results of this trial.
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
Smyth, E. C., Nilsson, M., Grabsch, H. I., van Grieken, N. C., & Lordick, F. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31288-5 · Cited by 4,803
Songun, I., Putter, H., Kranenbarg, E. M.-K., Sasako, M., & van de Velde, C. J. (2010) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70070-x · Cited by 1,765
Lee, J., Lim, D. H., Kim, S., Park, S. H., Park, J. O., Park, Y. S., Lim, H. Y., Choi, M. G., Sohn, T. S., Noh, J. H., et al. (2012) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2011.39.1953 · Cited by 803
Ajani, J. A., Lee, J., Sano, T., Janjigian, Y. Y., Fan, D., & Song, S. (2017) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/nrdp.2017.36 · Cited by 594
Metadata
- Authors
- for the Surgical Co-operative Group, Cuschieri, A., Weeden, S., Fielding, J., Bancewicz, J., Craven, J., Joypaul, V, Sydes, M., & Fayers, P.
- Venue
- British Journal of Cancer
- Published
- 1999-02-26
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 9-10
- Pages
- 1522-1530
- ISSN
- 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-1827
- OpenAlex
- W1970107675
- Cited by
- 1,373
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 40.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Patient survival after D1 and D2 resections for gastric cancer: long-term results of the MRC randomized surgical trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/sj.bjc.6690243
- The paper
- for the Surgical Co-operative Group, Cuschieri, A., Weeden, S., Fielding, J., Bancewicz, J., Craven, J., Joypaul, V, Sydes, M., & Fayers, P. (1999). Patient survival after D1 and D2 resections for gastric cancer: long-term results of the MRC randomized surgical trial. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6690243
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.