Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 712

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

Phase III Trial of Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin Versus Cisplatin Alone in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Sandler, A.B., Nemunaitis, J., Denham, C., von Pawel, J., Cormier, Y., Gatzemeier, U., Mattson, K., Manegold, Ch., Palmer, M.C., Gregor, A., Nguyen, B., Niyikiza, C., Einhorn, L.H.·2000·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: The Hoosier Oncology Group has previously reported the results of its phase II trial of the combination of cisplatin plus gemcitabine. In that study of 27 assessable patients with advanced or metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the response rate was 33%, with a median survival of 8.4 months. Based on such favorable results, the Hoosier Oncology Group designed this randomized phase III study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin compared with cisplatin alone in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either cisplatin (100 mg/m 2 intravenously on day 1 of a 28-day cycle) or the combination of cisplatin (100 mg/m 2 intravenously on day 1) plus gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m 2 administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle). RESULTS: From August 1995 to February 1997, 522 assessable chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized. Toxicity was predominantly hematologic and was more pronounced in the combination arm, with grade 4 neutropenia occurring in 35.3% of patients compared with 1.2% of patients on the cisplatin monotherapy arm. The incidence of neutropenic fevers was less than 5% in both arms. Grade 4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 25.4% of patients on the combination arm compared with 0.8% of patients on the cisplatin monotherapy arm. No serious hemorrhagic events related to thrombocytopenia were reported for either arm. The combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin demonstrated a significant improvement over single-agent cisplatin with regard to response rate (30.4% compared with 11.1%, respectively; P < .0001), median time to progressive disease (5.6 months compared with 3.7 months, respectively; P = .0013), and overall survival (9.1 months compared with 7.6 months, respectively; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: For the first-line treatment of NSCLC, the regimen of gemcitabine plus cisplatin is superior to cisplatin alone in terms of response rate, time to disease progression, and overall survival.

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.2000.18.1.122

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 712

Metadata

Authors
Sandler, A. B., Nemunaitis, J., Denham, C., von Pawel, J., Cormier, Y., Gatzemeier, U., Mattson, K., Manegold, C., Palmer, M. C., Gregor, A., Nguyen, B., Niyikiza, C., & Einhorn, L. H.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2000-01-01
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
122-122
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1848316250
Cited by
712
References
2
FWCI
61.81
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: Phase III Trial of Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin Versus Cisplatin Alone in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2000.18.1.122
The paper
Sandler, A. B., Nemunaitis, J., Denham, C., von Pawel, J., Cormier, Y., Gatzemeier, U., Mattson, K., Manegold, C., Palmer, M. C., Gregor, A., Nguyen, B., Niyikiza, C., & Einhorn, L. H. (2000). Phase III Trial of Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin Versus Cisplatin Alone in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2000.18.1.122

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.