Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 981

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy of intravenous continuous infusion of fluorouracil compared with bolus administration in advanced colorectal cancer. Meta-analysis Group In Cancer.

·1998·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: The administration of fluorouracil (5-FU) by continuous intravenous infusion (CI) is an alternative to the bolus administration of 5-FU in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Although more than 1,200 patients have been enrolled onto randomized trials that compared these two treatment modalities, there is still no definitive evidence of an advantage of 5-FU CI, and the magnitude of this advantage, if any, is also controversial. A meta-analysis was performed to assess this benefit in terms of tumor response and survival, and to compare the toxicity profiles of these two modalities of administration of 5-FU. DESIGN: Individual data of 1,219 patients included in six randomized trials served as the basis for this meta-analysis, which was conducted by an independent secretariat in close collaboration with the investigators. RESULTS: Tumor response rate was significantly higher in patients assigned to 5-FU CI than in patients assigned to 5-FU bolus (22% v 14%; overall response odds ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.41 to 0.75; P = .0002). Overall survival was also significantly higher in patients assigned to 5-FU CI (overall hazards ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.99; P = .04), although the median survival times were close. Multivariate analyses showed that randomized treatment and performance status were the only two significant predictors of tumor response, whereas the same plus primary tumor site were independent significant predictors of survival (patients with rectal cancer did somewhat better). Grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity was more frequent in patients assigned to 5-FU bolus (31% v 4%; P < 10(-16)), whereas hand-foot syndrome was more frequent in the 5-FU CI group (34% v 13%; P < 10(-7)). CONCLUSION: 5-FU CI is superior to 5-FU bolus in terms of tumor response and achieves a slight increase of overall survival. The hematologic toxicity is much less important in patients who receive 5-FU CI, but hand-foot syndrome is frequent in this group of patients.

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.1998.16.1.301

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 981

Metadata

Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1998-01
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
301-308
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2396646859
Cited by
981
References
2
FWCI
26.16
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: Efficacy of intravenous continuous infusion of fluorouracil compared with bolus administration in advanced colorectal cancer. Meta-analysis Group In Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1998.16.1.301
The paper
Efficacy of intravenous continuous infusion of fluorouracil compared with bolus administration in advanced colorectal cancer. Meta-analysis Group In Cancer. (1998). Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1998.16.1.301

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.