Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,437

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 access
Bonjer, H. Jaap, Deijen, Charlotte L., Abis, Gabor A., Cuesta, Miguel A., van der Pas, Martijn H.G.M., de Lange-de Klerk, Elly S.M., Lacy, Antonio M., Bemelman, Willem A., Andersson, John, Angenete, Eva, Rosenberg, Jacob, Fuerst, Alois, Haglind, Eva·2015·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa1414882

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 1,437

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
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.