Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 477

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Liposomal doxorubicin: antitumor activity and unique toxicities during two complementary phase I studies.

Uziely, B, Jeffers, S, Isacson, R, Kutsch, K, Wei-Tsao, D, Yehoshua, Z, Libson, E, Muggia, F M, Gabizon, A·1995·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of our studies was to define the maximal-tolerated dose of liposomal doxorubicin (DOX-SL; Liposome Technology Inc, Menlo Park, CA), a doxorubicin formulation of polyethyleneglycol-coated liposomes, characterize the toxicities associated with this formulation, and evaluate any indication of antitumor activity within a phase I setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two separate phase I studies were conducted following the initial human pharmacokinetic testing at one of the sites (Hadassah). The starting dose of 20 mg/m2 at the University of Southern California was just below the dose without toxicity in the pharmacokinetic study. At Hadassah, the phase I starting dose was just above their earlier safe single doses, 60 mg/m2. Both studies involved cohorts of at least three patients and redosing every 3 to 4 weeks. To determine the recommended dose for phase II trials, an additional level of 50 mg/m2 every 3 weeks was explored, and the level of 60 mg/m2 every 4 weeks was expanded. RESULTS: A total of 56 patients receiving 281 courses of DOX-SL was accrued and evaluated for toxicity. Hand-foot (H-F) syndrome and stomatitis are the two main dose-limiting factors of DOX-SL. Stomatitis was dose-limiting for high single doses of DOX-SL greater than 70 mg/m2. Skin toxicity manifested primarily as H-F syndrome was dose-limiting for repetitive dosing, but acceptable at either 50 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or 60 mg/m2 every 4 weeks. Attenuation of acute subjective symptoms and lack of alopecia were generally observed. Patients with carcinomas of the breast, ovary, prostate, and head and neck were among those showing objective antitumor responses or improvement based, in part, on blood levels of tumor markers. CONCLUSION: The toxicity profile of DOX-SL differs prominently from that of the free drug administered by bolus or rapid infusion and with some differences, resembles that of prolonged continuous infusion. This finding, as well as the antitumor activity observed, supports wide phase II testing of DOX-SL in solid tumors.

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.1995.13.7.1777

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 477

Metadata

Authors
Uziely, B., Jeffers, S., Isacson, R., Kutsch, K., Wei-Tsao, D., Yehoshua, Z., Libson, E., Muggia, F. M., & Gabizon, A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1995-07
Volume
13
Issue
7
Pages
1777-1785
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1769308960
Cited by
477
References
0
FWCI
20.89
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: Liposomal doxorubicin: antitumor activity and unique toxicities during two complementary phase I studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1995.13.7.1777
The paper
Uziely, B., Jeffers, S., Isacson, R., Kutsch, K., Wei-Tsao, D., Yehoshua, Z., Libson, E., Muggia, F. M., & Gabizon, A. (1995). Liposomal doxorubicin: antitumor activity and unique toxicities during two complementary phase I studies. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1995.13.7.1777

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.