Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 224

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

XELOX vs FOLFOX-4 as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: NO16966 updated results

Open access
Cassidy, J, Clarke, S, Díaz-Rubio, E, Scheithauer, W, Figer, A, Wong, R, Koski, S, Rittweger, K, Gilberg, F, Saltz, L·2011·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We report updated overall survival (OS) data from study NO16966, which compared capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) vs 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: NO16966 was a randomised, two-arm, non-inferiority, phase III comparison of XELOX vs FOLFOX4, which was subsequently amended to a 2 × 2 factorial design with further randomisation to bevacizumab or placebo. A planned follow-up exploratory analysis of OS was performed. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat (ITT) population comprised 2034 patients (two-arm portion, n=634; 2 × 2 factorial portion, n=1400). For the whole NO16966 study population, median OS was 19.8 months in the pooled XELOX/XELOX-placebo/XELOX-bevacizumab arms vs 19.5 months in the pooled FOLFOX4/FOLFOX4-placebo/FOLFOX4-bevacizumab arms (hazard ratio 0.95 (97.5% CI 0.85-1.06)). In the pooled XELOX/XELOX-placebo arms, median OS was 19.0 vs 18.9 months in the pooled FOLFOX4/FOLFOX4-placebo arms (hazard ratio 0.95 (97.5% CI 0.83-1.09)). FOLFOX4 was associated with more grade 3/4 neutropenia/granulocytopenia and febrile neutropenia than XELOX, and XELOX with more grade 3 diarrhoea and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome than FOLFOX4. CONCLUSION: Updated survival data from study NO16966 show that XELOX is similar to FOLFOX4, confirming the primary analysis of progression-free survival. XELOX can be considered as a routine first-line treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

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 · 10.1038/bjc.2011.201

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 224

Metadata

Authors
Cassidy, J., Clarke, S., Díaz-Rubio, E., Scheithauer, W., Figer, A., Wong, R., Koski, S., Rittweger, K., Gilberg, F., & Saltz, L.
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2011-06
Volume
105
Issue
1
Pages
58-64
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2027176779
Cited by
224
References
1
FWCI
7.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: XELOX vs FOLFOX-4 as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: NO16966 updated results. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/bjc.2011.201
The paper
Cassidy, J., Clarke, S., Díaz-Rubio, E., Scheithauer, W., Figer, A., Wong, R., Koski, S., Rittweger, K., Gilberg, F., & Saltz, L. (2011). XELOX vs FOLFOX-4 as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: NO16966 updated results. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.201

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.