Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 253

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

Prospective, multicenter randomized GITMO/IIL trial comparing intensive (R-HDS) versus conventional (CHOP-R) chemoimmunotherapy in high-risk follicular lymphoma at diagnosis: the superior disease control of R-HDS does not translate into an overall survival advantage

Ladetto, Marco, De Marco, Federica, Benedetti, Fabio, Vitolo, Umberto, Patti, Caterina, Rambaldi, Alessandro, Pulsoni, Alessandro, Musso, Maurizio, Liberati, Anna M., Olivieri, Attilio, Gallamini, Andrea, Pogliani, Enrico, Scalabrini, Delia Rota, Callea, Vincenzo, Di Raimondo, Francesco, Pavone, Vincenzo, Tucci, Alessandra, Cortelazzo, Sergio, Levis, Alessandro, Boccadoro, Mario, Majolino, Ignazio, Pileri, Alessandro, Gianni, Alessandro M., Passera, Roberto, Corradini, Paolo, Tarella, Corrado·2008·Blood

Abstract

In this randomized multicenter study of 136 patients, 6 courses of CHOP (cyclo-phosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine/prednisone) followed by rituximab (CHOP-R) were compared with rituximab-supplemented high-dose sequential chemotherapy with autografting (R-HDS) to assess the value of intensified chemo-therapy as a first-line treatment for high-risk follicular lymphoma (FL) after the introduction of monoclonal antibodies. The analysis was intention to treat with event-free survival (EFS) as the primary endpoint. Complete remission (CR) was 62% with CHOP-R and 85% with R-HDS (P < .001). At a median follow-up (MFU) of 51 months, the 4-year EFS was 28% and 61%, respectively (P < .001), with no difference in overall survival (OS). Molecular remission (MR) was achieved in 44% of CHOP-R and 80% of R-HDS patients (P < .001), and was the strongest independent outcome predictor. Patients relapsing after CHOP-R underwent salvage R-HDS in 71% of cases. Salvage R-HDS had an 85% CR rate and a 68% 3-year EFS (MFU, 30 months). We conclude that (1) achieving MR is critical for effective disease control, regardless of which treatment is used; (2) R-HDS ensures superior disease control and molecular outcome than CHOP-R, but no OS improvement; and (3) CHOP-R failures have a good outcome after salvage R-HDS, suggesting that relapsed/refractory FL could be the most appropriate setting for R-HDS–like treatments. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as no. NCT00435955.

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 · 10.1182/blood-2007-10-116749

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

Cited by

See all 253

Metadata

Authors
Ladetto, M., De Marco, F., Benedetti, F., Vitolo, U., Patti, C., Rambaldi, A., Pulsoni, A., Musso, M., Liberati, A. M., Olivieri, A., Gallamini, A., Pogliani, E., Scalabrini, D. R., Callea, V., Di Raimondo, F., Pavone, V., Tucci, A., Cortelazzo, S., Levis, A., Boccadoro, M., Majolino, I., Pileri, A., Gianni, A. M., Passera, R., Corradini, P., & Tarella, C.
Venue
Blood
Published
2008-04-15
Volume
111
Issue
8
Pages
4004-4013
ISSN
  • 0006-4971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-0020
OpenAlex
W2152996672
Cited by
253
References
1
FWCI
15.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Prospective, multicenter randomized GITMO/IIL trial comparing intensive (R-HDS) versus conventional (CHOP-R) chemoimmunotherapy in high-risk follicular lymphoma at diagnosis: the superior disease control of R-HDS does not translate into an overall survival advantage. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1182/blood-2007-10-116749
The paper
Ladetto, M., De Marco, F., Benedetti, F., Vitolo, U., Patti, C., Rambaldi, A., Pulsoni, A., Musso, M., Liberati, A. M., Olivieri, A., Gallamini, A., Pogliani, E., Scalabrini, D. R., Callea, V., Di Raimondo, F., Pavone, V., Tucci, A., Cortelazzo, S., Levis, A., . . . Tarella, C. (2008). Prospective, multicenter randomized GITMO/IIL trial comparing intensive (R-HDS) versus conventional (CHOP-R) chemoimmunotherapy in high-risk follicular lymphoma at diagnosis: the superior disease control of R-HDS does not translate into an overall survival advantage. Blood. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2007-10-116749

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.