Trial reportBJS open2024
Long-term follow-up of the conventional versus no-touch isolation technique for resection of primary colon cancer (JCOG1006): randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BJS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Revisiting the lateral-to-medial approach in robotic surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer.Surgery today · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) 1006 was a phase III trial of patients with clinical T3/T4 colon cancer comparing the no-touch isolation technique ('No Touch') with the conventional technique ('Conventional'). The planned primary analysis at 3 years failed to confirm the superiority of the No Touch over the 'Conventional'. The present study aimed to compare the 'No Touch' and 'Conventional' using long-term (6-year) follow-up data.
methodsPatients aged 20-80 years who had a clinical classification of T3-4, N0-2, and M0 with histologically proven colon cancer were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to undergo open surgery using 'Conventional' or 'No Touch' techniques. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival.
resultsIn total, 853 patients from 30 institutions were assigned to the 'Conventional' (427) or 'No Touch' (426) groups between June 2011 and November 2015. The 6-year disease-free survival was 70.3% and 69.4% for 'Conventional' and 'No Touch' arms respectively (HR 1.030; 95% c.i. 0.813 to 1.304; one-sided P = 0.60). The 6-year overall survival was 89.4% and 86.6% respectively (HR 1.276; 95% c.i. 0.902 to 1.807). The 6-year relapse-free survival was 78.9% and 75.0% respectively (HR 1.209; 95% c.i. 0.920 to 1.589). The 6-year liver relapse-free survival was 85.1% and 80.2% respectively (HR 1.311; 95% c.i. 0.961 to 1.787).
conclusionLong-term follow-up data did not support the superiority of 'No Touch' over 'Conventional' technique in patients with stages II and III colon cancer. These study findings indicate that the conventional technique is still standard surgery for managing colon cancers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000004957.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.