Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 526

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Doxorubicin versus CYVADIC versus doxorubicin plus ifosfamide in first-line treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcomas: a randomized study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group.

Santoro, A, Tursz, T, Mouridsen, H, Verweij, J, Steward, W, Somers, R, Buesa, J, Casali, P, Spooner, D, Rankin, E·1995·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this trial was to compare the activity and toxicity of single-agent doxorubicin with that of two multidrug regimens in the treatment of patients with adult advanced soft tissue sarcomas. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective randomized phase III trial performed by 35 cancer centers within the Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Six hundred sixty-three eligible patients were randomly allocated to receive either doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 (arm A), cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dacarbazine (CYVADIC) (arm B), or ifosfamide 5 g/m2 plus doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 (arm C). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 24% (95% confidence interval, 20.7% to 27.3%) among eligible patients and 26% among assessable patients. No statistically significant difference was detected among the three study arms in terms of response rate (arm A, 23.3%; arm B, 28.4%; and arm C, 28.1%), remission duration (median, 46 weeks on arm A, 48 weeks on arm B, and 44 weeks on arm C), or overall survival (median, 52 weeks on arm A, 51 weeks on arm B, and 55 weeks on arm C). The degree of myelosuppression was significantly greater for the combination of ifosfamide and doxorubicin than for the other two regimens. Cardiotoxicity was also more frequent in this arm, but other toxicities were similar. CONCLUSION: In advanced soft tissue sarcomas of adults, single-agent doxorubicin is still the standard chemotherapy against which more intensive or new drug treatments should be compared. Combination chemotherapy cannot be recommended outside a controlled clinical trial with the exclusion of some subsets of sarcoma patients for whom significant tumor volume reduction may be an important end point of a chemotherapy regimen.

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.1995.13.7.1537

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 526

Metadata

Authors
Santoro, A., Tursz, T., Mouridsen, H., Verweij, J., Steward, W., Somers, R., Buesa, J., Casali, P., Spooner, D., & Rankin, E.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1995-07
Volume
13
Issue
7
Pages
1537-1545
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2161378536
Cited by
526
References
0
FWCI
13.62
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: Doxorubicin versus CYVADIC versus doxorubicin plus ifosfamide in first-line treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcomas: a randomized study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1995.13.7.1537
The paper
Santoro, A., Tursz, T., Mouridsen, H., Verweij, J., Steward, W., Somers, R., Buesa, J., Casali, P., Spooner, D., & Rankin, E. (1995). Doxorubicin versus CYVADIC versus doxorubicin plus ifosfamide in first-line treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcomas: a randomized study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1995.13.7.1537

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.