Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,497

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

Randomized Trial of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection of Colorectal Carcinoma: 3-Year Results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group

Open access
Jayne, David G., Guillou, Pierre J., Thorpe, Helen, Quirke, Philip, Copeland, Joanne, Smith, Adrian M.H., Heath, Richard M., Brown, Julia M.·2007·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the current study is to report the long-term outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted surgery compared with conventional open surgery within the context of the UK MRC CLASICC trial. Results from randomized trials have indicated that laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is as effective as open surgery in the short term. Few data are available on rectal cancer, and long-term data on survival and recurrence are now required. Methods: The United Kingdom Medical Research Council Conventional versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Surgery in Colorectal Cancer (UK MRC CLASICC; clinical trials number ISRCTN 74883561) trial study comparing conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with cancer of the colon and rectum. The randomization ratio was 2:1 in favor of laparoscopic surgery. Long-term outcomes (3-year overall survival [OS], disease-free survival [DFS], local recurrence, and quality of life [QoL]) have now been determined on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: Seven hundred ninety-four patients were recruited (526 laparoscopic and 268 open). Overall, there were no differences in the long-term outcomes. The differences in survival rates were OS of 1.8% (95% CI, −5.2% to 8.8%; P = .55), DFS of −1.4% (95% CI, −9.5% to 6.7%; P = .70), local recurrence of −0.8% (95% CI, −5.7% to 4.2%; P = .76), and QoL (P > .01 for all scales). Higher positivity of the circumferential resection margin was reported after laparoscopic anterior resection (AR), but it did not translate into an increased incidence of local recurrence. Conclusion: Successful laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colon cancer is as effective as open surgery in terms of oncological outcomes and preservation of QoL. Long-term outcomes for patients with rectal cancer were similar in those undergoing abdominoperineal resection and AR, and support the continued use of laparoscopic surgery in these patients.

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.2006.09.7758

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 1,497

Metadata

Authors
Jayne, D. G., Guillou, P. J., Thorpe, H., Quirke, P., Copeland, J., Smith, A. M. H., Heath, R. M., & Brown, J. M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2007-07-20
Volume
25
Issue
21
Pages
3061-3068
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2131073034
Cited by
1,497
References
1
FWCI
39.24
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: Randomized Trial of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection of Colorectal Carcinoma: 3-Year Results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2006.09.7758
The paper
Jayne, D. G., Guillou, P. J., Thorpe, H., Quirke, P., Copeland, J., Smith, A. M. H., Heath, R. M., & Brown, J. M. (2007). Randomized Trial of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection of Colorectal Carcinoma: 3-Year Results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.09.7758

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.