Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 3,081

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Paclitaxel plus Bevacizumab versus Paclitaxel Alone for Metastatic Breast Cancer

Open access
Miller, Kathy, Wang, Molin, Gralow, Julie, Dickler, Maura, Cobleigh, Melody, Perez, Edith A., Shenkier, Tamara, Cella, David, Davidson, Nancy E.·2007·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel with that of paclitaxel plus bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor, as initial treatment for metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients to receive 90 mg of paclitaxel per square meter of body-surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks, either alone or with 10 mg of bevacizumab per kilogram of body weight on days 1 and 15. The primary end point was progression-free survival; overall survival was a secondary end point. RESULTS: From December 2001 through May 2004, a total of 722 patients were enrolled. Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival as compared with paclitaxel alone (median, 11.8 vs. 5.9 months; hazard ratio for progression, 0.60; P<0.001) and increased the objective response rate (36.9% vs. 21.2%, P<0.001). The overall survival rate, however, was similar in the two groups (median, 26.7 vs. 25.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.88; P=0.16). Grade 3 or 4 hypertension (14.8% vs. 0.0%, P<0.001), proteinuria (3.6% vs. 0.0%, P<0.001), headache (2.2% vs. 0.0%, P=0.008), and cerebrovascular ischemia (1.9% vs. 0.0%, P=0.02) were more frequent in patients receiving paclitaxel plus bevacizumab. Infection was more common in patients receiving paclitaxel plus bevacizumab (9.3% vs. 2.9%, P<0.001), but febrile neutropenia was uncommon (<1% overall). CONCLUSIONS: Initial therapy of metastatic breast cancer with paclitaxel plus bevacizumab prolongs progression-free survival, but not overall survival, as compared with paclitaxel alone. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00028990 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

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/nejmoa072113

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 3,081

Metadata

Authors
Miller, K., Wang, M., Gralow, J., Dickler, M., Cobleigh, M., Perez, E. A., Shenkier, T., Cella, D., & Davidson, N. E.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2007-12-27
Volume
357
Issue
26
Pages
2666-2676
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2126275851
Cited by
3,081
References
6
FWCI
130.54
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: Paclitaxel plus Bevacizumab versus Paclitaxel Alone for Metastatic Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa072113
The paper
Miller, K., Wang, M., Gralow, J., Dickler, M., Cobleigh, M., Perez, E. A., Shenkier, T., Cella, D., & Davidson, N. E. (2007). Paclitaxel plus Bevacizumab versus Paclitaxel Alone for Metastatic Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa072113

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.