Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 464

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A randomized trial to evaluate the effect of schedule on the activity of etoposide in small-cell lung cancer.

Slevin, M L, Clark, P I, Joel, S P, Malik, S, Osborne, R J, Gregory, W M, Lowe, D G, Reznek, R H, Wrigley, P F·1989·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Etoposide is an increasingly used and well-tolerated drug in cancer medicine. Its cytotoxic action is phase-specific and it has demonstrated schedule dependency in both in vitro and animal studies, but clinical evidence of the importance of drug scheduling is uncertain. The two administration schedules of etoposide that have been compared in this randomized study of 39 patients with previously untreated extensive small-cell lung cancer treated with single-agent etoposide were 500 mg/m2 as a continuous intravenous (IV) infusion over 24 hours or five consecutive daily 2-hour infusions each of 100 mg/m2. Both regimens were repeated every 3 weeks, for a maximum of six cycles. Patients received combination chemotherapy with vincristine, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (VAC) or radiotherapy on failure to respond or at relapse, depending on their Karnofsky performance status. The same therapy was used in both arms of the study. All patients are evaluable for response to etoposide. In the 24-hour arm, two patients achieved a partial remission, resulting in an overall response rate of 10%. In the 5-day schedule, 16 patients had a partial response and one had a complete remission, producing an overall response rate of 89%, which was significantly superior to that in the 24-hour arm (P less than .001). The median duration of remission to etoposide in the 5-day arm was 4.5 months. Bone marrow toxicity was similar in both schedules. Etoposide pharmacokinetics were measured in all patients, and total areas under the concentration versus time curves (AUCs) were equivalent in both regimens. This study has clearly demonstrated the importance of etoposide scheduling in humans, and the superiority of five daily infusions over a 24-hour continuous infusion. The response rate to single-agent etoposide using an efficacious schedule in extensive small-cell lung cancer has been determined to be in excess of 80%.

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.1989.7.9.1333

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 464

Metadata

Authors
Slevin, M. L., Clark, P. I., Joel, S. P., Malik, S., Osborne, R. J., Gregory, W. M., Lowe, D. G., Reznek, R. H., & Wrigley, P. F.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1989-09
Volume
7
Issue
9
Pages
1333-1340
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1955033393
Cited by
464
References
0
FWCI
12.64
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 randomized trial to evaluate the effect of schedule on the activity of etoposide in small-cell lung cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1989.7.9.1333
The paper
Slevin, M. L., Clark, P. I., Joel, S. P., Malik, S., Osborne, R. J., Gregory, W. M., Lowe, D. G., Reznek, R. H., & Wrigley, P. F. (1989). A randomized trial to evaluate the effect of schedule on the activity of etoposide in small-cell lung cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1989.7.9.1333

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.