Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 302

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Doxorubicin plus evofosfamide versus doxorubicin alone in locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (TH CR-406/SARC021): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial

Open access
Tap, William D, Papai, Zsuzsanna, Van Tine, Brian A, Attia, Steven, Ganjoo, Kristen N, Jones, Robin L, Schuetze, Scott, Reed, Damon, Chawla, Sant P, Riedel, Richard F, Krarup-Hansen, Anders, Toulmonde, Maud, Ray-Coquard, Isabelle, Hohenberger, Peter, Grignani, Giovanni, Cranmer, Lee D, Okuno, Scott, Agulnik, Mark, Read, William, Ryan, Christopher W, Alcindor, Thierry, del Muro, Xavier F Garcia, Budd, G Thomas, Tawbi, Hussein, Pearce, Tillman, Kroll, Stew, Reinke, Denise K, Schöffski, Patrick·2017·The Lancet Oncology

Abstract

Background Evofosfamide is a hypoxia-activated prodrug of bromo-isophosphoramide mustard. We aimed to assess the benefit of adding evofosfamide to doxorubicin as first-line therapy for advanced soft-tissue sarcomas. Methods We did this international, open-label, randomised, phase 3, multicentre trial (TH CR-406/SARC021) at 81 academic or community investigational sites in 13 countries. Eligible patients were aged 15 years or older with a diagnosis of an advanced unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma, of intermediate or high grade, for which no standard curative therapy was available, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1, and measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive doxorubicin alone (75 mg/m2 via bolus injection administered over 5–20 min or continuous intravenous infusion for 6–96 h on day 1 of every 21-day cycle for up to six cycles) or doxorubicin (given via the same dose procedure) plus evofosfamide (300 mg/m2 intravenously for 30–60 min on days 1 and 8 of every 21-day cycle for up to six cycles). After six cycles of treatment, patients in the single-drug doxorubicin group were followed up expectantly whereas patients with stable or responsive disease in the combination group were allowed to continue with evofosfamide monotherapy until documented disease progression. A web-based central randomisation with block sizes of two and four was stratified by extent of disease, doxorubicin administration method, and previous systemic therapy. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received any amount of study drug. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01440088. Findings Between Sept 26, 2011, and Jan 22, 2014, 640 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (317 to doxorubicin plus evofosfamide and 323 to doxorubicin alone), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The overall survival endpoint was not reached (hazard ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·88–1·29; p=0·527), with a median overall survival of 18·4 months (95% CI 15·6–22·1) with doxorubicin plus evofosfamide versus 19·0 months (16·2–22·4) with doxorubicin alone. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both groups were haematological, including anaemia (150 [48%] of 313 patients in the doxorubicin plus evofosfamide group vs 65 [21%] of 308 in the doxorubicin group), neutropenia (47 [15%] vs 92 [30%]), febrile neutropenia (57 [18%] vs 34 [11%]), leucopenia (22 [7%] vs 17 [6%]), decreased neutrophil count (31 [10%] vs 41 [13%]), and decreased white blood cell count (39 [13%] vs 33 [11%]). Grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia was more common in the combination group (45 [14%]) than in the doxorubicin alone group (four [1%]), as was grade 3–4 stomatitis (26 [8%] vs seven [2%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 145 (46%) of 313 patients in the combination group and 99 (32%) of 308 in the doxorubicin alone group. Five (2%) patients died from treatment-related causes in the combination group (sepsis [n=2], septic shock [n=1], congestive cardiac failure [n=1], and unknown cause [n=1]) versus one (<1%) patient in the doxorubicin alone group (lactic acidosis [n=1]). Interpretation The addition of evofosfamide to doxorubicin as first-line therapy did not improve overall survival compared with single-drug doxorubicin in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas and so this combination cannot be recommended in this setting. Funding Threshold Pharmaceuticals.

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 · 10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30381-9

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 302

Metadata

Authors
Tap, W. D., Papai, Z., Van Tine, B. A., Attia, S., Ganjoo, K. N., Jones, R. L., Schuetze, S., Reed, D., Chawla, S. P., Riedel, R. F., Krarup-Hansen, A., Toulmonde, M., Ray-Coquard, I., Hohenberger, P., Grignani, G., Cranmer, L. D., Okuno, S., Agulnik, M., Read, W., Ryan, C. W., Alcindor, T., del Muro, X. F. G., Budd, G. T., Tawbi, H., Pearce, T., Kroll, S., Reinke, D. K., & Schöffski, P.
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
18
Issue
8
Pages
1089-1103
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2653632515
Cited by
302
References
4
FWCI
20.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Doxorubicin plus evofosfamide versus doxorubicin alone in locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (TH CR-406/SARC021): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30381-9
The paper
Tap, W. D., Papai, Z., Van Tine, B. A., Attia, S., Ganjoo, K. N., Jones, R. L., Schuetze, S., Reed, D., Chawla, S. P., Riedel, R. F., Krarup-Hansen, A., Toulmonde, M., Ray-Coquard, I., Hohenberger, P., Grignani, G., Cranmer, L. D., Okuno, S., Agulnik, M., Read, W., . . . Schöffski, P. (2017). Doxorubicin plus evofosfamide versus doxorubicin alone in locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (TH CR-406/SARC021): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. The Lancet Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30381-9

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.