Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 838

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Standard and Increased-Dose BEACOPP Chemotherapy Compared with COPP-ABVD for Advanced Hodgkin's Disease

Open access
Diehl, Volker, Franklin, Jeremy, Pfreundschuh, Michael, Lathan, Bernd, Paulus, Ursula, Hasenclever, Dirk, Tesch, Hans, Herrmann, Richard, Dörken, Bernd, Müller-Hermelink, Hans-Konrad, Dühmke, Eckhardt, Loeffler, Markus·2003·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Faced with unsatisfactory results of treatment for advanced Hodgkin's disease, we investigated three combinations of chemotherapy. METHODS: From 1993 to 1998, 1201 eligible patients 15 to 65 years of age who had newly diagnosed Hodgkin's disease in unfavorable stage IIB or IIIA or stage IIIB or IV were randomly assigned to receive eight cycles of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone alternating with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (COPP-ABVD); bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (BEACOPP); or increased-dose BEACOPP, each followed by local radiotherapy when indicated. Enrollment in the COPP-ABVD group was stopped in 1996 owing to inferior results. RESULTS: For the final analysis, 1195 of 1201 patients could be evaluated: 260 in the COPP-ABVD group, 469 in the BEACOPP group, and 466 in the increased-dose BEACOPP group; the median follow-up was 72, 54, and 51 months, respectively. The rate of freedom from treatment failure at five years was 69 percent in the COPP-ABVD group, 76 percent in the BEACOPP group, and 87 percent in the increased-dose BEACOPP group (P=0.04 for the comparison of the COPP-ABVD group with the BEACOPP group and P<0.001 for the comparison of the increased-dose BEACOPP group with the COPP-ABVD group and with the BEACOPP group), and the five-year rates of overall survival were 83 percent, 88 percent, and 91 percent, respectively (P=0.16 for the comparison of the COPP-ABVD group with the BEACOPP group, P=0.06 for the comparison of the BEACOPP group with the increased-dose BEACOPP group, and P=0.002 for the comparison of the COPP-ABVD group with the increased-dose BEACOPP group). Rates of early progression were significantly lower with increased-dose BEACOPP than with COPP-ABVD or standard BEACOPP. CONCLUSIONS: Increased-dose BEACOPP resulted in better tumor control and overall survival than did COPP-ABVD.

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa022473

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 838

Metadata

Authors
Diehl, V., Franklin, J., Pfreundschuh, M., Lathan, B., Paulus, U., Hasenclever, D., Tesch, H., Herrmann, R., Dörken, B., Müller-Hermelink, H.-K., Dühmke, E., & Loeffler, M.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2003-06-12
Volume
348
Issue
24
Pages
2386-2395
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2136962826
Cited by
838
References
0
FWCI
27.43
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: Standard and Increased-Dose BEACOPP Chemotherapy Compared with COPP-ABVD for Advanced Hodgkin's Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa022473
The paper
Diehl, V., Franklin, J., Pfreundschuh, M., Lathan, B., Paulus, U., Hasenclever, D., Tesch, H., Herrmann, R., Dörken, B., Müller-Hermelink, H.-K., Dühmke, E., & Loeffler, M. (2003). Standard and Increased-Dose BEACOPP Chemotherapy Compared with COPP-ABVD for Advanced Hodgkin's Disease. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa022473

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.