The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Intraperitoneal Cisplatin plus Intravenous Cyclophosphamide versus Intravenous Cisplatin plus Intravenous Cyclophosphamide for Stage III Ovarian Cancer
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard primary therapy for advanced ovarian cancer. We conducted a phase 3 trial to compare the effects of intraperitoneal and intravenous cisplatin on the survival of women with previously untreated, stage III, epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: The patients underwent an initial exploratory laparotomy and resection of all tumor masses larger than 2 cm. Within four weeks after surgery, six courses of intravenous cyclophosphamide (600 mg per square meter of body-surface area per course) plus either intraperitoneal cisplatin (100 mg per square meter) or intravenous cisplatin (100 mg per square meter) were administered at three-week intervals. RESULTS: Of 654 randomized patients, 546 were eligible for the study. The estimated median survival was significantly longer in the group receiving intraperitoneal cisplatin (49 months; 95 percent confidence interval, 42 to 56) than in the group receiving intravenous cisplatin (41 months; 95 percent confidence interval, 34 to 47). The risk of death was lower in the intraperitoneal group than in the intravenous group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.61 to 0.96; P = 0.02). Moderate-to-severe tinnitus, clinical hearing loss, and neuromuscular toxic effects were significantly more frequent in the intravenous group. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with intravenous cisplatin, intraperitoneal cisplatin significantly improves survival and has significantly fewer toxic effects in patients with stage III ovarian cancer and residual tumor masses of 2 cm or less.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Regression Models and Life-Tables
Cox, D. R. (1972) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1972.tb00899.x · Cited by 39,793
Cited by
Lheureux, S., Gourley, C., Vergote, I., & Oza, A. M. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32552-2 · Cited by 1,919
Colombo, N., Sessa, C., du Bois, A., Ledermann, J., McCluggage, W. G., McNeish, I., Morice, P., Pignata, S., Ray-Coquard, I., Vergote, I., et al. (2019) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz062 · Cited by 1,197
Markman, M., Bundy, B. N., Alberts, D. S., Fowler, J. M., Clark-Pearson, D. L., Carson, L. F., Wadler, S., & Sickel, J. (2001) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2001.19.4.1001 · Cited by 1,080
Self-citationTreatment of epithelial ovarian cancer
Kuroki, L., & Guntupalli, S. R. (2020) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.m3773 · Cited by 873
Eisenkop, S. M., Friedman, R. L., & Wang, H.-J. (1998) · Gynecologic Oncology · doi:10.1006/gyno.1998.4955 · Cited by 507
Metadata
- Authors
- Alberts, D. S., Liu, P. Y., Hannigan, E. V., O'Toole, R., Williams, S. D., Young, J. A., Franklin, E. W., Clarke-Pearson, D. L., Malviya, V. K., DuBeshter, B., Adelson, M. D., & Hoskins, W. J.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1996-12-26
- Volume
- 335
- Issue
- 26
- Pages
- 1950-1955
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2316501478
- Cited by
- 1,228
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 23.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Intraperitoneal Cisplatin plus Intravenous Cyclophosphamide versus Intravenous Cisplatin plus Intravenous Cyclophosphamide for Stage III Ovarian Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199612263352603
- The paper
- Alberts, D. S., Liu, P. Y., Hannigan, E. V., O'Toole, R., Williams, S. D., Young, J. A., Franklin, E. W., Clarke-Pearson, D. L., Malviya, V. K., DuBeshter, B., Adelson, M. D., & Hoskins, W. J. (1996). Intraperitoneal Cisplatin plus Intravenous Cyclophosphamide versus Intravenous Cisplatin plus Intravenous Cyclophosphamide for Stage III Ovarian Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199612263352603
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.