Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,583

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Extended Lymph-Node Dissection for Gastric Cancer

Open access
Bonenkamp, J.J., Hermans, J., Sasako, M., Welvaart, K., Songun, I., Meyer, S., Plukker, J.T.M., Van Elk, P., Obertop, H., Gouma, D.J., van Lanschot, J.J.B., Taat, C.W., de Graaf, P.W., von Meyenfeldt, M.F., Tilanus, H., van de Velde, C.J.H.·1999·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Curative resection is the treatment of choice for gastric cancer, but it is unclear whether this operation should include an extended (D2) lymph-node dissection, as recommended by the Japanese medical community, or a limited (D1) dissection. We conducted a randomized trial in 80 Dutch hospitals in which we compared D1 with D2 lymph-node dissection for gastric cancer in terms of morbidity, postoperative mortality, long-term survival, and cumulative risk of relapse after surgery. METHODS: Between August 1989 and July 1993, a total of 996 patients entered the study. Of these patients, 711 (380 in the D1 group and 331 in the D2 group) underwent the randomly assigned treatment with curative intent, and 285 received palliative treatment. The procedures for quality control included instruction and supervision in the operating room and monitoring of the pathological results. RESULTS: Patients in the D2 group had a significantly higher rate of complications than did those in the D1 group (43 percent vs. 25 percent, P<0.001), more postoperative deaths (10 percent vs. 4 percent, P= 0.004), and longer hospital stays (median, 16 vs. 14 days; P<0.001). Five-year survival rates were similar in the two groups: 45 percent for the D1 group and 47 percent for the D2 group (95 percent confidence interval for the difference, -9.6 percent to +5.6 percent). The patients who had R0 resections (i.e., who had no microscopical evidence of remaining disease), excluding those who died postoperatively, had cumulative risks of relapse at five years of 43 percent with D1 dissection and 37 percent with D2 dissection (95 percent confidence interval for the difference, -2.4 percent to +14.4 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Our results in Dutch patients do not support the routine use of D2 lymph-node dissection in patients with gastric 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm199903253401202

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 1,583

Metadata

Authors
Bonenkamp, J. J., Hermans, J., Sasako, M., Welvaart, K., Songun, I., Meyer, S., Plukker, J. T. M., Van Elk, P., Obertop, H., Gouma, D. J., van Lanschot, J. J. B., Taat, C. W., de Graaf, P. W., von Meyenfeldt, M. F., Tilanus, H., & van de Velde, C. J. H.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1999-03-25
Volume
340
Issue
12
Pages
908-914
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2099433579
Cited by
1,583
References
0
FWCI
62.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Extended Lymph-Node Dissection for Gastric Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199903253401202
The paper
Bonenkamp, J. J., Hermans, J., Sasako, M., Welvaart, K., Songun, I., Meyer, S., Plukker, J. T. M., Van Elk, P., Obertop, H., Gouma, D. J., van Lanschot, J. J. B., Taat, C. W., de Graaf, P. W., von Meyenfeldt, M. F., Tilanus, H., & van de Velde, C. J. H. (1999). Extended Lymph-Node Dissection for Gastric Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199903253401202

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.