Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 570

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

Multimodal therapy for the management of primary, nonmetastatic Ewing's sarcoma of bone: a long-term follow-up of the First Intergroup study.

Nesbit, M E, Gehan, E A, Burgert, E O, Vietti, T J, Cangir, A, Tefft, M, Evans, R, Thomas, P, Askin, F B, Kissane, J M·1990·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

A total of 342 previously untreated eligible children were entered into the first Intergroup Ewing's Sarcoma Study (IESS) between May 1973 and November 1978. In group I institutions, patients were randomized between treatment 1 (radiotherapy to primary lesion plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, dactinomycin, and Adriamycin [doxorubicin; Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH] [VAC plus ADR]) or treatment 2 (same as treatment 1 without ADR), and group II institutions randomized patients between treatment 2 or treatment 3 (same as treatment 2 plus bilateral pulmonary radiotherapy [VAC plus BPR]). The percentages of patients relapse-free and surviving (RFS) at 5 years for treatments 1, 2, and 3 were 60%, 24%, and 44%, respectively. There was strong statistical evidence of a significant advantage in RFS for treatment 1 (VAC plus ADR) versus 2 (VAC alone) (P less than .001) and 3 (P less than .05) and also of treatment 3 versus 2 (P less than .001). Similar significant results were observed with respect to overall survival. Patients with disease at pelvic sites have significantly poorer survival at 5 years than those with disease at nonpelvic sites (34% v 57%; P less than .001). Among pelvic cases, there was no evidence of differing survival by treatment (P = .81), but among nonpelvic cases, there was strong evidence of differing survival by treatment (P less than .001). The overall percentage of patients developing metastatic disease was 44%; the percentages by treatments 1, 2, and 3 were 30%, 72%, and 42%, respectively. The overall incidence of local recurrence was 15%, and there was no evidence that local recurrence rate differed by treatment. Patient characteristics related to prognosis, both with respect to RFS and overall survival experience, were primary site (nonpelvic patients were most favorable) and patient age (younger patients were more favorable).

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.1990.8.10.1664

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 570

Metadata

Authors
Nesbit, M. E., Gehan, E. A., Burgert, E. O., Vietti, T. J., Cangir, A., Tefft, M., Evans, R., Thomas, P., Askin, F. B., & Kissane, J. M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1990-10
Volume
8
Issue
10
Pages
1664-1674
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1797236870
Cited by
570
References
1
FWCI
12.44
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: Multimodal therapy for the management of primary, nonmetastatic Ewing's sarcoma of bone: a long-term follow-up of the First Intergroup study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1990.8.10.1664
The paper
Nesbit, M. E., Gehan, E. A., Burgert, E. O., Vietti, T. J., Cangir, A., Tefft, M., Evans, R., Thomas, P., Askin, F. B., & Kissane, J. M. (1990). Multimodal therapy for the management of primary, nonmetastatic Ewing's sarcoma of bone: a long-term follow-up of the First Intergroup study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1990.8.10.1664

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.