The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Long-term Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial of Laparoscopy-assisted Versus Open Surgery for Colon Cancer
Abstract
In Brief Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcome of laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC) and open colectomy (OC) for nonmetastatic colon cancer. Methods: From November 1993 to July 1998 all patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon were assessed for entry in this single center, clinically randomized trial. Adjuvant therapy and postoperative follow-up were similar in both groups. The primary endpoint was cancer-related survival and secondary endpoints were probability of overall survival and probability of being free of recurrence. Data were analyzed according the intention-to-treat principle. Results: Two hundred and nineteen patients entered the study (111 LAC group and 108 OC group). The median follow-up was 95 months (range, 77–133). There was a tendency of higher cancer-related survival (P = 0.07, NS) and overall survival (P = 0.06, NS) for the LAC group. Probability of cancer-related survival was higher in the LAC group (P = 0.02) when compared with OC. The regression analysis showed that LAC was independently associated with a reduced risk of tumor relapse (hazard ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.23–0.94), death from a cancer-related cause (0.44, 0.21–0.92) and death from any cause (0.59, 0.35–0.98). Conclusions: LAC is more effective than OC in the treatment of colon cancer. This clinical randomized trial compared the long-term results of laparoscopy-assisted colon resection with the open colon resection for nonmetastatic colon cancer. The Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that patients treated by laparoscopy-assisted colectomy have a higher probability of cancer-related survival than those treated by open surgery (P = 0.02).
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
Kabbinavar, F. F., Hambleton, J., Mass, R. D., Hurwitz, H. I., Bergsland, E., & Sarkar, S. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2005.00.232 · Cited by 686
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
Neutrophils Promote Liver Metastasis via Mac-1–Mediated Interactions with Circulating Tumor Cells
Spicer, J. D., McDonald, B., Cools-Lartigue, J. J., Chow, S. C., Giannias, B., Kubes, P., & Ferri, L. E. (2012) · Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-11-2393 · Cited by 401
de Lacy, A. M., Rattner, D. W., Adelsdorfer, C., Tasende, M. M., Fernández, M., Delgado, S., Sylla, P., & Martínez-Palli, G. (2013) · Surgical Endoscopy · doi:10.1007/s00464-013-2872-0 · Cited by 301
Self-citationLi, W., Zhou, X., Huang, Z., Zhang, H., Zhang, L., Shang, C., & Chen, Y. (2015) · Surgical Endoscopy · doi:10.1007/s00464-014-4041-5 · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Lacy, A. M., Delgado, S., Castells, A., Prins, H. A., Arroyo, V., Ibarzabal, A., & Pique, J. M.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2008-07
- Volume
- 248
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-7
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1965437314
- Cited by
- 570
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 17.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: The Long-term Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial of Laparoscopy-assisted Versus Open Surgery for Colon Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e31816a9d65
- The paper
- Lacy, A. M., Delgado, S., Castells, A., Prins, H. A., Arroyo, V., Ibarzabal, A., & Pique, J. M. (2008). The Long-term Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial of Laparoscopy-assisted Versus Open Surgery for Colon Cancer. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e31816a9d65
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.
