Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 817

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Radical Prostatectomy with Watchful Waiting in Early Prostate Cancer

Open access
Holmberg, Lars, Bill-Axelson, Anna, Helgesen, Fred, Salo, Jaakko O., Folmerz, Per, Häggman, Michael, Andersson, Swen-Olof, Spångberg, Anders, Busch, Christer, Nordling, Steg, Palmgren, Juni, Adami, Hans-Olov, Johansson, Jan-Erik, Norlén, Bo Johan·2002·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Radical prostatectomy is widely used in the treatment of early prostate cancer. The possible survival benefit of this treatment, however, is unclear. We conducted a randomized trial to address this question. METHODS: From October 1989 through February 1999, 695 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in International Union against Cancer clinical stage T1b, T1c, or T2 were randomly assigned to watchful waiting or radical prostatectomy. We achieved complete follow-up through the year 2000 with blinded evaluation of causes of death. The primary end point was death due to prostate cancer, and the secondary end points were overall mortality, metastasis-free survival, and local progression. RESULTS: During a median of 6.2 years of follow-up, 62 men in the watchful-waiting group and 53 in the radical-prostatectomy group died (P=0.31). Death due to prostate cancer occurred in 31 of 348 of those assigned to watchful waiting (8.9 percent) and in 16 of 347 of those assigned to radical prostatectomy (4.6 percent) (relative hazard, 0.50; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.27 to 0.91; P=0.02). Death due to other causes occurred in 31 of 348 men in the watchful-waiting group (8.9 percent) and in 37 of 347 men in the radical-prostatectomy group (10.6 percent). The men assigned to surgery had a lower relative risk of distant metastases than the men assigned to watchful waiting (relative hazard, 0.63; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, radical prostatectomy significantly reduced disease-specific mortality, but there was no significant difference between surgery and watchful waiting in terms of overall survival.

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/nejmoa012794

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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 817

Metadata

Authors
Holmberg, L., Bill-Axelson, A., Helgesen, F., Salo, J. O., Folmerz, P., Häggman, M., Andersson, S.-O., Spångberg, A., Busch, C., Nordling, S., Palmgren, J., Adami, H.-O., Johansson, J.-E., & Norlén, B. J.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2002-09-12
Volume
347
Issue
11
Pages
781-789
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2079907181
Cited by
817
References
1
FWCI
85.54
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: A Randomized Trial Comparing Radical Prostatectomy with Watchful Waiting in Early Prostate Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa012794
The paper
Holmberg, L., Bill-Axelson, A., Helgesen, F., Salo, J. O., Folmerz, P., Häggman, M., Andersson, S.-O., Spångberg, A., Busch, C., Nordling, S., Palmgren, J., Adami, H.-O., Johansson, J.-E., & Norlén, B. J. (2002). A Randomized Trial Comparing Radical Prostatectomy with Watchful Waiting in Early Prostate Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa012794

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.