Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 773

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A prospective randomized comparison of continuous infusion fluorouracil with a conventional bolus schedule in metastatic colorectal carcinoma: a Mid-Atlantic Oncology Program Study.

Lokich, J J, Ahlgren, J D, Gullo, J J, Philips, J A, Fryer, J G·1989·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

One hundred seventy-nine patients with advanced measurable colorectal cancer not previously treated with chemotherapy were entered into a prospective randomized clinical trial by the Mid-Atlantic Oncology Program (MAOP) to compare two schedules of delivery for single-agent fluorouracil (5-FU). The "standard" treatment was a schedule commonly employed in clinical practice, namely, a daily bolus dose administered intravenously (IV) for five consecutive days and repeated at 5-week intervals. The investigational treatment was a continuous infusion of 5-FU administered 24 hours a day for a protracted time (10 weeks or more). Both treatments were continued until the development of disease progression or unless interrupted for toxicity. Using stringent objective criteria requiring independent confirmation of x-ray or scan-documented response, the tumor response rate reached 7% (six of 87) for the bolus arm and 30% (26 of 87) for the infusion arms (P less than .001). Toxicity was substantially different for the two arms with major leukopenia observed only on the bolus arm, 22% developing grade 3 (severe) or grade 4 (life-threatening) leukopenia with four sepsis-related deaths. Hand-foot syndrome was observed only in the infusional arm, requiring treatment interruptions and dose reductions in 24% of patients, but with little impact on quality of life. In spite of the major difference in objective response rate, overall survival for the two groups was comparable. Administration of 5-FU as a continuous infusion for protracted periods clearly improves the therapeutic index for this agent in patients with advanced colon cancer with respect to response rate and reduced toxicity. This schedule appears workable in the community setting and yields response rates similar to those reported for 5-FU with high-dose leucovorin, but without the gastroin testinal toxicity profile of the latter combination.

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.1989.7.4.425

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 773

Metadata

Authors
Lokich, J. J., Ahlgren, J. D., Gullo, J. J., Philips, J. A., & Fryer, J. G.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1989-04
Volume
7
Issue
4
Pages
425-432
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1902766545
Cited by
773
References
7
FWCI
12.32
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: A prospective randomized comparison of continuous infusion fluorouracil with a conventional bolus schedule in metastatic colorectal carcinoma: a Mid-Atlantic Oncology Program Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1989.7.4.425
The paper
Lokich, J. J., Ahlgren, J. D., Gullo, J. J., Philips, J. A., & Fryer, J. G. (1989). A prospective randomized comparison of continuous infusion fluorouracil with a conventional bolus schedule in metastatic colorectal carcinoma: a Mid-Atlantic Oncology Program Study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1989.7.4.425

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.