Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 197

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prospective evaluation of major vascular events in patients with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma treated with cisplatin and gemcitabine

Numico, Gianmauro, Garrone, Ornella, Dongiovanni, Vincenzo, Silvestris, Nicola, Colantonio, Ida, Di Costanzo, Gianna, Granetto, Cristina, Occelli, Marcella, Fea, Elena, Heouaine, Abdelamid, Gasco, Milena, Merlano, Marco·2005·Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cancer and cisplatin‐based chemotherapy both are well recognized risk factors for coagulation disorders and thrombosis. However, vascular events (VEs) seldom are considered adverse effects of treatment and may not even be taken into account in reports of chemotherapy trials. METHODS: VEs were recorded prospectively in a population of patients with nonsmall‐cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) who were treated consecutively with cisplatin and gemcitabine using a diagnostic flow chart based on a thorough clinical examination, hematologic and coagulative parameters, and imaging assessments when appropriate. RESULTS: From January, 2000 to January 2003, 108 patients with Stage III–IV NSCLC underwent chemotherapy and were evaluated. Overall, 22 VEs occurred in 19 patients (17.6%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 10.3–24.8%), including 10 arterial VEs (2 myocardial infarctions, 7 lower limb arterial thrombosis, and 1 ischemic stroke) and 12 venous VEs (3 catheter‐related upper limb VEs, 6 venous thrombosis of the lower limb, and 3 pulmonary embolisms). The cumulative proportion of VEs at 1 year after the start of chemotherapy was 22.0% (95% CI, 12.7–31.3%). Four patients died due to the VE (overall mortality, 3.7%), and 3 patients needed surgical revascularization. In the other patients, conservative medical treatment was effective. Baseline patient‐related and disease‐related characteristics of the patients with VEs did not differ significantly from the characteristics of patients without VE; liver and brain metastases were more frequent in patients with VE, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. Response rates were similar in the two groups. A double VE was detected in three patients who were given further chemotherapy after resolution of the first event. CONCLUSIONS: VEs were a common finding in chemotherapy‐treated NSCLC patients. Chemotherapy itself seem to be a powerful risk factor for VE. Strategies to predict the occurrence of VEs should be developed to spare this life‐threatening toxicity. Cancer 2005. © 2005 American Cancer Society.

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.20893

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 197

Metadata

Authors
Numico, G., Garrone, O., Dongiovanni, V., Silvestris, N., Colantonio, I., Di Costanzo, G., Granetto, C., Occelli, M., Fea, E., Heouaine, A., Gasco, M., & Merlano, M.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-01-21
Volume
103
Issue
5
Pages
994-999
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
OpenAlex
W1983638746
Cited by
197
References
0
FWCI
5.54
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: Prospective evaluation of major vascular events in patients with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma treated with cisplatin and gemcitabine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.20893
The paper
Numico, G., Garrone, O., Dongiovanni, V., Silvestris, N., Colantonio, I., Di Costanzo, G., Granetto, C., Occelli, M., Fea, E., Heouaine, A., Gasco, M., & Merlano, M. (2005). Prospective evaluation of major vascular events in patients with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma treated with cisplatin and gemcitabine. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20893

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.