Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 390

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Guidelines for clinical protocols for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Recommendations of the national cancer institute‐sponsored working group

Cheson, Bruce D., Bennett, John M., Rai, Kanti R., Grever, Michael R., Kay, Neil E., Schiffer, Charles A., Oken, Martin M., Keating, Michael J., Boldt, David H., Kempin, Sanford J., Foon, Kenneth A.·1988·American Journal of Hematology

Abstract

The National Cancer Institute (NCI)‐sponsored Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) Working Group was convened to develop a set of standardized eligibility, response, and toxicity criteria for clinical trials. We recognized the previous efforts in 1967 published again in 1973 as the report of the Chronic Leukemia‐Myeloma Task Force [1] and 1978 of Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) [2]. We have used these reports for guidance during the current effort. Several noteworthy developments in the past few years have made it necessary to modify the previous guidelines. First, the diagnostic criteria for CLL and its clinical staging have been developed and well defined. Second, although staging systems facilitated entry of comparable and relatively homogeneous groups of patients in clinical trials, the definitions of response (CR) and partial response (PR) were not uniformly adopted from the previous guidelines in the clinical trials (Tables IA, IB); therefore, comparisons of results obtained in different studies became difficult. Third, there has been an improvement in our understanding of the immunology and biology of CLL. Finally, we are witnessing the emergence of several chemotherapy agents that promise impressive activity in CLL (e.g., 2′‐deoxycoformycin [3], fludarabine monophos‐phate [4,5]), and thereby offer the potential for improving survival time in this disease. To best identify regimens worthy of continued pursuit in large comparative trials, standardized guidelines for evaluation are essential. A number of laboratory investigations are also presented for which scientific interest is high yet relevance remains to be determined; thus, they are presented as companion studies to the clinical trials. This mechanism allows for flexibility in the testing of these questions and for additional ideas in the future without requiring modification of an entire treatment protocol.

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 · 10.1002/ajh.2830290307

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.

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

Cited by

See all 390

Metadata

Authors
Cheson, B. D., Bennett, J. M., Rai, K. R., Grever, M. R., Kay, N. E., Schiffer, C. A., Oken, M. M., Keating, M. J., Boldt, D. H., Kempin, S. J., & Foon, K. A.
Venue
American Journal of Hematology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1988-11
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
152-163
ISSN
  • 0361-8609 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-8652
OpenAlex
W1968102342
Cited by
390
References
0
FWCI
4.97
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: Guidelines for clinical protocols for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Recommendations of the national cancer institute‐sponsored working group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ajh.2830290307
The paper
Cheson, B. D., Bennett, J. M., Rai, K. R., Grever, M. R., Kay, N. E., Schiffer, C. A., Oken, M. M., Keating, M. J., Boldt, D. H., Kempin, S. J., & Foon, K. A. (1988). Guidelines for clinical protocols for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Recommendations of the national cancer institute‐sponsored working group. American Journal of Hematology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.2830290307

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.