Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 324

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improved Sphincter Preservation in Low Rectal Cancer With High-Dose Preoperative Radiotherapy: The Lyon R96-02 Randomized Trial

Gerard, Jean-Pierre, Chapet, Olivier, Nemoz, Chantal, Hartweig, Johannes, Romestaing, Pascale, Coquard, Regis, Barbet, Nicolas, Maingon, Philippe, Mahe, Marc, Baulieux, Jacques, Partensky, Christian, Papillon, Marc, Glehen, Olivier, Crozet, Bruno, Grandjean, Jean-Paul, Adeleine, Patrice·2004·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: The potential advantage of high-dose preoperative radiotherapy to increase tumor response and improve the chance of sphincter preservation for low rectal cancer remains controversial. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the role of escalating the dose of preoperative radiation to increase sphincter-saving procedures. Patients and Methods: Patients with rectal carcinoma located in the lower rectum, staged T2 or T3, Nx, or M0 with endorectal sonography, and not involving more than two-thirds circumference, were randomly assigned to one of two groups: preoperative external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT; 39 Gy in 13 fractions over 17 days) versus the same EBRT with boost (85 Gy in three fractions) using endocavitary contact x-ray. Results: Between 1996 and 2001, 88 patients were enrolled onto the study. A significant improvement was seen in favor of the contact x-ray boost for complete clinical response (24% v 2%) and for a complete or near-complete sterilization of the operative specimen (57% v 34%). A significant increase in sphincter preservation was observed in the boost group (76% v 44%; P = .004). At a median follow-up of 35 months, there was no difference in morbidity, local relapse, and 2-year overall survival. Conclusion: A dose escalation with endocavitary irradiation provides increased tumor response and sphincter preservation with no detrimental effect on treatment toxicity and early clinical outcome.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2004.08.170

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 324

Metadata

Authors
Gerard, J.-P., Chapet, O., Nemoz, C., Hartweig, J., Romestaing, P., Coquard, R., Barbet, N., Maingon, P., Mahe, M., Baulieux, J., Partensky, C., Papillon, M., Glehen, O., Crozet, B., Grandjean, J.-P., & Adeleine, P.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2004-06-15
Volume
22
Issue
12
Pages
2404-2409
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2127809867
Cited by
324
References
3
FWCI
9.40
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: Improved Sphincter Preservation in Low Rectal Cancer With High-Dose Preoperative Radiotherapy: The Lyon R96-02 Randomized Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2004.08.170
The paper
Gerard, J.-P., Chapet, O., Nemoz, C., Hartweig, J., Romestaing, P., Coquard, R., Barbet, N., Maingon, P., Mahe, M., Baulieux, J., Partensky, C., Papillon, M., Glehen, O., Crozet, B., Grandjean, J.-P., & Adeleine, P. (2004). Improved Sphincter Preservation in Low Rectal Cancer With High-Dose Preoperative Radiotherapy: The Lyon R96-02 Randomized Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2004.08.170

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.