Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 280

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of doxorubicin and mitoxantrone in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced diffuse non-Hodgkin's lymphoma using CHOP versus CNOP chemotherapy.

Sonneveld, P, de Ridder, M, van der Lelie, H, Nieuwenhuis, K, Schouten, H, Mulder, A, van Reijswoud, I, Hop, W, Lowenberg, B·1995·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized, multicenter phase III trial was performed to investigate the feasibility of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) chemotherapy in elderly patients ( > or = 60 years) with advanced non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) of intermediate- and high-grade malignancy, and to compare the tolerance and efficacy of doxorubicin versus mitoxantrone (CHOP v CNOP). RESULTS: Of 157 enrolled patients, 148 were eligible and 145 were assessable for response. Thirty-one percent of CNOP and 45% of CHOP patients completed six cycles without dose reduction. The cumulative normalized dose-intensity (NDI) was 92% with CHOP and 90% with CNOP after six cycles. The overall complete response (CR) rates were 49% and 31% in CHOP- and CNOP-treated patients, respectively (P = .03). Survival with CNOP was significantly worse as compared with CHOP (P = .03). Lymphoma-specific survival was significantly better in CHOP-treated patients (P = .034) At 3 years, 42% of CHOP and 26% of CNOP patients were alive. Additional unfavorable prognostic factors at diagnosis were high serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, bulky mass, and low performance status, but not age. The median disease-free intervals of complete responders were 27 (CHOP) and 15 (CNOP) months, respectively. Considering the complete group of patients, at 3 years 17% of CHOP and 13% of CNOP patients were alive and disease-free (P = .12). Common toxicity criteria (CTC) grade > or = 2 with CNOP and CHOP was not different. CONCLUSION: CHOP is well tolerated in elderly patients with advanced intermediate- or high-grade NHL and its NDI is not seriously impaired. Treatment with CHOP (doxorubicin) results in better CR and survival rates than CNOP (mitoxantrone). CHOP should be recommended for elderly patients with high-risk NHL.

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.1995.13.10.2530

Cites

14 of 14 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 14 references

Cited by

See all 280

Metadata

Authors
Sonneveld, P., de Ridder, M., van der Lelie, H., Nieuwenhuis, K., Schouten, H., Mulder, A., van Reijswoud, I., Hop, W., & Lowenberg, B.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1995-10
Volume
13
Issue
10
Pages
2530-2539
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1924320258
Cited by
280
References
14
FWCI
7.06
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: Comparison of doxorubicin and mitoxantrone in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced diffuse non-Hodgkin's lymphoma using CHOP versus CNOP chemotherapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1995.13.10.2530
The paper
Sonneveld, P., de Ridder, M., van der Lelie, H., Nieuwenhuis, K., Schouten, H., Mulder, A., van Reijswoud, I., Hop, W., & Lowenberg, B. (1995). Comparison of doxorubicin and mitoxantrone in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced diffuse non-Hodgkin's lymphoma using CHOP versus CNOP chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1995.13.10.2530

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.