Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,139

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Phase 3 trial of everolimus for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Final results and analysis of prognostic factors

Motzer, Robert J., Escudier, Bernard, Oudard, Stephane, Hutson, Thomas E., Porta, Camillo, Bracarda, Sergio, Grünwald, Viktor, Thompson, John A., Figlin, Robert A., Hollaender, Norbert, Kay, Andrea, Ravaud, Alain, for the RECORD‐1 Study Group·2010·Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A phase 3 trial demonstrated superiority at interim analysis for everolimus over placebo in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) progressing on vascular endothelial growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Final results and analysis of prognostic factors are reported. METHODS: Patients with mRCC (N = 416) were randomized (2:1) to everolimus 10 mg/d (n = 277) or placebo (n = 139) plus best supportive care. Progression‐free survival (PFS) and safety were assessed to the end of double‐blind treatment. Mature overall survival (OS) data were analyzed, and prognostic factors for survival were investigated by multivariate analyses. A rank‐preserving structural failure time model estimated the effect on OS, correcting for crossover from placebo to everolimus. RESULTS: The median PFS was 4.9 months (everolimus) versus 1.9 months (placebo) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; P < .001) by independent central review and 5.5 months (everolimus) versus 1.9 months (placebo) (HR, 0.32; P < .001) by investigators. Serious adverse events with everolimus, independent of causality, in ≥5% of patients included infections (all types, 10%), dyspnea (7%), and fatigue (5%). The median OS was 14.8 months (everolimus) versus 14.4 months (placebo) (HR, 0.87; P = .162), with 80% of patients in the placebo arm crossed over to everolimus. By the rank‐preserving structural failure time model, the survival corrected for crossover was 1.9‐fold longer (95% confidence interval, 0.5‐8.5) with everolimus compared with placebo only. Independent prognostic factors for shorter OS in the study included low performance status, high corrected calcium, low hemoglobin, and prior sunitinib ( P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: These results established the efficacy and safety of everolimus in patients with mRCC after progression on sunitinib and/or sorafenib. Cancer 2010. © 2010 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.25219

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 1,139

Metadata

Authors
Motzer, R. J., Escudier, B., Oudard, S., Hutson, T. E., Porta, C., Bracarda, S., Grünwald, V., Thompson, J. A., Figlin, R. A., Hollaender, N., Kay, A., Ravaud, A., & for the RECORD‐1 Study Group
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-06-14
Volume
116
Issue
18
Pages
4256-4265
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
OpenAlex
W2138129102
Cited by
1,139
References
3
FWCI
93.47
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: Phase 3 trial of everolimus for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Final results and analysis of prognostic factors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.25219
The paper
Motzer, R. J., Escudier, B., Oudard, S., Hutson, T. E., Porta, C., Bracarda, S., Grünwald, V., Thompson, J. A., Figlin, R. A., Hollaender, N., Kay, A., Ravaud, A., & for the RECORD‐1 Study Group. (2010). Phase 3 trial of everolimus for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Final results and analysis of prognostic factors. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25219

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.