Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,248

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

Capecitabine as Adjuvant Treatment for Stage III Colon Cancer

Open access
Twelves, Chris, Wong, Alfred, Nowacki, Marek P., Abt, Markus, Burris, Howard, Carrato, Alfredo, Cassidy, Jim, Cervantes, Andrés, Fagerberg, Jan, Georgoulias, Vassilis, Husseini, Fares, Jodrell, Duncan, Koralewski, Piotr, Kröning, Hendrik, Maroun, Jean, Marschner, Norbert, McKendrick, Joseph, Pawlicki, Marek, Rosso, Riccardo, Schüller, Johannes, Seitz, Jean-François, Stabuc, Borut, Tujakowski, Jerzy, Van Hazel, Guy, Zaluski, Jerzy, Scheithauer, Werner·2005·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Intravenous bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin is the standard adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. The oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine is an established alternative to bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. We evaluated capecitabine in the adjuvant setting. METHODS: We randomly assigned a total of 1987 patients with resected stage III colon cancer to receive either oral capecitabine (1004 patients) or bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin (Mayo Clinic regimen; 983 patients) over a period of 24 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was at least equivalence in disease-free survival; the primary safety end point was the incidence of grade 3 or 4 toxic effects due to fluoropyrimidines. RESULTS: Disease-free survival in the capecitabine group was at least equivalent to that in the fluorouracil-plus-leucovorin group (in the intention-to-treat analysis, P<0.001 for the comparison of the upper limit of the hazard ratio with the noninferiority margin of 1.20). Capecitabine improved relapse-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.74 to 0.99; P=0.04) and was associated with significantly fewer adverse events than fluorouracil plus leucovorin (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Oral capecitabine is an effective alternative to intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin in the adjuvant treatment of colon 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 · 10.1056/nejmoa043116

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 1,248

Metadata

Authors
Twelves, C., Wong, A., Nowacki, M. P., Abt, M., Burris, H., Carrato, A., Cassidy, J., Cervantes, A., Fagerberg, J., Georgoulias, V., Husseini, F., Jodrell, D., Koralewski, P., Kröning, H., Maroun, J., Marschner, N., McKendrick, J., Pawlicki, M., Rosso, R., Schüller, J., Seitz, J.-F., Stabuc, B., Tujakowski, J., Van Hazel, G., Zaluski, J., & Scheithauer, W.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2005-06-30
Volume
352
Issue
26
Pages
2696-2704
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2146161922
Cited by
1,248
References
1
FWCI
34.62
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: Capecitabine as Adjuvant Treatment for Stage III Colon Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa043116
The paper
Twelves, C., Wong, A., Nowacki, M. P., Abt, M., Burris, H., Carrato, A., Cassidy, J., Cervantes, A., Fagerberg, J., Georgoulias, V., Husseini, F., Jodrell, D., Koralewski, P., Kröning, H., Maroun, J., Marschner, N., McKendrick, J., Pawlicki, M., Rosso, R., . . . Scheithauer, W. (2005). Capecitabine as Adjuvant Treatment for Stage III Colon Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa043116

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.