Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 403

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rhabdomyosarcoma in adults: A retrospective analysis of 171 patients treated at a single institution

Ferrari, Andrea, Dileo, Palma, Casanova, Michela, Bertulli, Rossella, Meazza, Cristina, Gandola, Lorenza, Navarria, Pierina, Collini, Paola, Gronchi, Alessandro, Olmi, Patrizia, Fossati‐Bellani, Franca, Casali, Paolo G.·2003·Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The goal of the current study was to clarify treatment outcomes for adult patients with rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS). Published series have reported definitively worse results for adults with RMS compared with children with RMS. This finding casts doubt on whether RMS is the same disease in adults as it is in children. METHODS: Of 190 patients with RMS who were age 18 years or older and whose cases were recorded over a 25‐year span in the pathology database of the Istituto Nazionale Tumori (Milan, Italy), 171 could be analyzed retrospectively for treatment outcome. The authors attempted to stratify patients according to the degree to which they had been treated appropriately, based on current treatment guidelines for childhood RMS. RESULTS: The overall rate of response to chemotherapy was 85%. For the entire series, 5‐year event‐free survival and 5‐year overall survival (OS) were 28% and 40%, respectively. Among the 110 patients with embryonal, alveolar, or ‘not otherwise specified’ RMS, 5‐year OS was 46%; however, 5‐year OS was 61% for patients within this group (39% of the total) who had high scores for appropriate treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The current series parallels other published series in that it confirms the finding of a relatively poor long‐term outcome for adult patients with RMS. However, for patients whose treatment adhered to the current guidelines for treatment of children, outcome was similar to what has been reported in pediatric series. In addition, the rate of response to chemotherapy for the entire series was similar to the rate typically observed among children. These findings suggest that adults and children with RMS should receive similar treatment. Treatment protocols adopted from pediatric programs but tailored to adults could increase adults' chances of receiving appropriate treatment; prospective studies are needed to test this idea. Cancer 2003;98:571–80. © 2003 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.11550

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/cncr.11550

Cites

15 of 15 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 15 references

Cited by

See all 403

Metadata

Authors
Ferrari, A., Dileo, P., Casanova, M., Bertulli, R., Meazza, C., Gandola, L., Navarria, P., Collini, P., Gronchi, A., Olmi, P., Fossati‐Bellani, F., & Casali, P. G.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-06-16
Volume
98
Issue
3
Pages
571-580
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
OpenAlex
W1965129745
Cited by
403
References
15
FWCI
3.91
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: Rhabdomyosarcoma in adults: A retrospective analysis of 171 patients treated at a single institution. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.11550
The paper
Ferrari, A., Dileo, P., Casanova, M., Bertulli, R., Meazza, C., Gandola, L., Navarria, P., Collini, P., Gronchi, A., Olmi, P., Fossati‐Bellani, F., & Casali, P. G. (2003). Rhabdomyosarcoma in adults: A retrospective analysis of 171 patients treated at a single institution. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11550

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.