The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Randomized Trial of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer is widely used. However, robust evidence to conclude that laparoscopic surgery and open surgery have similar outcomes in rectal cancer is lacking. A trial was designed to compare 3-year rates of cancer recurrence in the pelvic or perineal area (locoregional recurrence) and survival after laparoscopic and open resection of rectal cancer. METHODS: In this international trial conducted in 30 hospitals, we randomly assigned patients with a solitary adenocarcinoma of the rectum within 15 cm of the anal verge, not invading adjacent tissues, and without distant metastases to undergo either laparoscopic or open surgery in a 2:1 ratio. The primary end point was locoregional recurrence 3 years after the index surgery. Secondary end points included disease-free and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 1044 patients were included (699 in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 345 in the open-surgery group). At 3 years, the locoregional recurrence rate was 5.0% in the two groups (difference, 0 percentage points; 90% confidence interval [CI], -2.6 to 2.6). Disease-free survival rates were 74.8% in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 70.8% in the open-surgery group (difference, 4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.9 to 9.9). Overall survival rates were 86.7% in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 83.6% in the open-surgery group (difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.6 to 7.8). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery in patients with rectal cancer was associated with rates of locoregional recurrence and disease-free and overall survival similar to those for open surgery. (Funded by Ethicon Endo-Surgery Europe and others; COLOR II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00297791.).
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
Cites
Preoperative Radiotherapy Combined with Total Mesorectal Excision for Resectable Rectal Cancer
Kapiteijn, E., Marijnen, C. A. M., Nagtegaal, I. D., Putter, H., Steup, W. H., Wiggers, T., Rutten, H. J. T., Pahlman, L., Glimelius, B., van Krieken, J. H. J. M., et al. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa010580 · Cited by 4,205
Cited by
Gustafsson, U. O., Scott, M. J., Hubner, M., Nygren, J., Demartines, N., Francis, N., Rockall, T. A., Young‐Fadok, T. M., Hill, A. G., Soop, M., et al. (2019) · World Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00268-018-4844-y · Cited by 2,119
Boutron, I., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Ravaud, P., & for the CONSORT NPT Group* (2017) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m17-0046 · Cited by 1,538
Colorectal Cancer Immunotherapy: Options and Strategies
Johdi, N. A., & Sukor, N. F. (2020) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2020.01624 · Cited by 452
Metadata
- Authors
- Bonjer, H. J., Deijen, C. L., Abis, G. A., Cuesta, M. A., van der Pas, M. H. G. M., de Lange-de Klerk, E. S. M., Lacy, A. M., Bemelman, W. A., Andersson, J., Angenete, E., Rosenberg, J., Fuerst, A., & Haglind, E.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2015-04-02
- Volume
- 372
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 1324-1332
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2011743240
- Cited by
- 1,437
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 58.38
- 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 of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1414882
- The paper
- Bonjer, H. J., Deijen, C. L., Abis, G. A., Cuesta, M. A., van der Pas, M. H. G. M., de Lange-de Klerk, E. S. M., Lacy, A. M., Bemelman, W. A., Andersson, J., Angenete, E., Rosenberg, J., Fuerst, A., & Haglind, E. (2015). A Randomized Trial of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1414882
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.