Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 459

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy of osteosarcoma: results of a randomized cooperative trial (COSS-82) with salvage chemotherapy based on histological tumor response.

Winkler, K, Beron, G, Delling, G, Heise, U, Kabisch, H, Purfürst, C, Berger, J, Ritter, J, Jürgens, H, Gerein, V·1988·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Following observation of the predictive value of the histologic extent of tumor cell destruction after preoperative chemotherapy for metastasis-free survival (MFS) in osteosarcoma, a randomized study was undertaken with the aim of (1) sparing some patients the unpleasant side effects of highly toxic drugs like doxorubicin (DOX) and cisplatin (CPDD) by administering these drugs postoperatively only after poor response with a milder preoperative regimen, and (2) improving the prognosis of patients responding poorly to the initial treatment by use of a salvage chemotherapy postoperatively. The available patients were divided into two groups. Those in the study arm received a preoperative chemotherapy consisting of high-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) and the triple drug combination of bleomycin, cyclophosphamide, and dactinomycin (BCD) and were switched to DOX/CPDD postoperatively in case of poor response. DOX/CPDD was used besides HDMTX for initial treatment in the control arm, and BCD alternatively with CPDD/ifosfamide (IFO) for postoperative salvage treatment. The response rate of the study arm was significantly inferior to the control arm (26% v 60%; P less than .001). The actuarial 4-year MFS rate of poor responders after salvage chemotherapy also was poorest in the study arm (41%); it was unchanged in the control arm (53%) as compared with that of poor responders from the COSS-80 study without salvage chemotherapy (52%). The actuarial 4-year MFS rate of good responders was 73% in the study arm, 79% in the control arm, and not significantly different from that of the COSS-80 study (84%), although postoperative chemotherapy of good responders had been markedly shortened as compared with the COSS-80 study. The actuarial 4-year MFS rate of the study arm as a whole was inferior to that of the control arm (49% v 68%; P less than .1) and also inferior to the COSS-80 study (68%; P less than .01), indicating a failure of the employed salvage strategy in general and especially of the effort to restrict the use of the very effective but highly toxic drugs DOX and CPDD to patients resistant to a less toxic initial treatment.

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 · 10.1200/jco.1988.6.2.329

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 459

Metadata

Authors
Winkler, K., Beron, G., Delling, G., Heise, U., Kabisch, H., Purfürst, C., Berger, J., Ritter, J., Jürgens, H., & Gerein, V
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1988-02
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
329-337
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1902222293
Cited by
459
References
0
FWCI
13.61
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: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy of osteosarcoma: results of a randomized cooperative trial (COSS-82) with salvage chemotherapy based on histological tumor response. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1988.6.2.329
The paper
Winkler, K., Beron, G., Delling, G., Heise, U., Kabisch, H., Purfürst, C., Berger, J., Ritter, J., Jürgens, H., & Gerein, V. (1988). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy of osteosarcoma: results of a randomized cooperative trial (COSS-82) with salvage chemotherapy based on histological tumor response. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1988.6.2.329

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.