The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Extended Lymph-Node Dissection for Gastric Cancer
Open accessAbstract
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.
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
Self-citationAjani, 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
Catalano, V., Labianca, R., Beretta, G. D., Gatta, G., de Braud, F., & Van Cutsem, E. (2009) · Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology · doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2009.01.004 · Cited by 365
Anal cancer: ESMO-ESSO-ESTRO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up
Glynne-Jones, R., Nilsson, P. J., Aschele, C., Goh, V., Peiffert, D., Cervantes, A., & Arnold, D. (2014) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu159 · Cited by 355
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
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- 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.