The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Toxicity of fluorouracil in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: effect of administration schedule and prognostic factors. Meta-Analysis Group In Cancer.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Fluorouracil (5-FU) continuous infusion is superior to 5-FU bolus in patients with advanced colorectal cancer, but the survival difference between the two treatments is small and, therefore, the difference in toxicity profile is crucial in choosing a treatment for individual patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of all randomized trials that compared 5-FU bolus with 5-FU CI, based on individual data from 1,219 patients, to compare the toxicity of the two schedules of 5-FU administration and to identify predictive factors for toxicity. The toxicities considered were World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 to 4 anemia, thrombopenia, leukopenia, neutropenia, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, mucositis, and hand-foot syndrome. RESULTS: Hematologic toxicity, mainly neutropenia, was more frequent with 5-FU bolus than with 5-FU CI (31% and 4%, respectively; P < .0001). Hand-foot syndrome was less frequent with 5-FU bolus than with 5-FU CI (13% and 34%, respectively; P < .0001). There was no difference between the two treatment groups in terms of other nonhematologic toxicities. Independent prognostic factors were age, sex, and performance status for nonhematologic toxicities, performance status, and treatment for hematologic toxicities, and age, sex, and treatment for hand-foot syndrome. CONCLUSION: Based on a large data set, this study confirmed and quantified the toxicity profile of the two schedules of administration of 5-FU and allowed the identification of clinical predictors of toxicity.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer
Van Cutsem, E., Cervantes, A., Adam, R., Sobrero, A., Van Krieken, J. H., Aderka, D., Aranda Aguilar, E., Bardelli, A., Benson, A., Bodoky, G., et al. (2016) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdw235 · Cited by 3,421
Clinical studies of three oral prodrugs of 5-fluorouracil (capecitabine, UFT, S-1): A review
Malet-Martino, M., & Martino, R. (2002) · The Oncologist · doi:10.1634/theoncologist.7-4-288 · Cited by 382
Basis for effective combination cancer chemotherapy with antimetabolites
Peters, G. J., van der Wilt, C. L., van Moorsel, C. J. A., Kroep, J. R., Bergman, A. M., & Ackland, S. P. (2000) · Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/s0163-7258(00)00086-3 · Cited by 301
Women Experience Greater Toxicity With Fluorouracil-Based Chemotherapy for Colorectal Cancer
Sloan, J. A. (2002) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.20.6.1491 · Cited by 262
Completion of therapy by Medicare patients with stage III colon cancer
Dobie, S. A., Baldwin, L.-M., Dominitz, J. A., Matthews, B., Billingsley, K., & Barlow, W. (2006) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djj159 · Cited by 150
Metadata
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 1998-11
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 3537-3541
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2396149304
- Cited by
- 495
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.61
- 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: Toxicity of fluorouracil in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: effect of administration schedule and prognostic factors. Meta-Analysis Group In Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1998.16.11.3537
- The paper
- Toxicity of fluorouracil in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: effect of administration schedule and prognostic factors. Meta-Analysis Group In Cancer. (1998). Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1998.16.11.3537
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.