Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,181

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prospective Randomized Trial of Docetaxel Versus Best Supportive Care in Patients With Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Previously Treated With Platinum-Based Chemotherapy

Shepherd, Frances A., Dancey, Janet, Ramlau, Rodryg, Mattson, Karin, Gralla, Richard, O’Rourke, Mark, Levitan, Nathan, Gressot, Laurent, Vincent, Mark, Burkes, Ronald, Coughlin, Susan, Kim, Yong, Berille, Jocelyne·2000·Journal of Clinical Oncology
DOI 10.1200/jco.2000.18.10.2095
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether treatment with single-agent docetaxel would result in longer survival than would best supportive care in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer who had previously been treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Secondary end points included assessment of response (docetaxel arm only), toxicity, and quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with performance statuses of 0 to 2 and stage IIIB/IV non–small-cell lung cancer with either measurable or evaluable lesions were eligible for entry onto the study if they had undergone one or more platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and if they had adequate hematology and biochemistry parameters. They were excluded if they had symptomatic brain metastases or if they had previously been treated with paclitaxel. Patients were stratified by performance status and best response to cisplatin chemotherapy and were then randomized to treatment with docetaxel 100 mg/m 2(49 patients) or 75 mg/m 2(55 patients) or best supportive care. Patients in both arms were assessed every 3 weeks. RESULTS: One hundred four patients (103 of whom were eligible for entry onto the study) were well balanced for prognostic factors. Of 84 patients with measurable lesions, six (7.1%) achieved partial responses (three patients at each dose level). Time to progression was longer for docetaxel patients than for best supportive care patients (10.6 v 6.7 weeks, respectively; P < .001), as was median survival (7.0 v 4.6 months; log-rank test, P = .047). The difference was more significant for docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 patients, compared with corresponding best supportive care patients (7.5 v 4.6 months; log-rank test, P = .010; 1-year survival, 37% v 11%; χ 2 test, P = .003). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 11 patients treated with docetaxel 100 mg/m 2, three of whom died, and in one patient treated with docetaxel 75 mg/m 2. Grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic toxicity, with the exception of diarrhea, occurred at a similar rate in both the docetaxel and best supportive care groups. CONCLUSION: Treatment with docetaxel is associated with significant prolongation of survival, and at a dose of 75 mg/m 2, the benefits of docetaxel therapy outweigh the risks.

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.2000.18.10.2095

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Shepherd, F. A., Dancey, J., Ramlau, R., Mattson, K., Gralla, R., O’Rourke, M., Levitan, N., Gressot, L., Vincent, M., Burkes, R., Coughlin, S., Kim, Y., & Berille, J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Publisher
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Published
2000-05-10
Volume
18
Issue
10
Pages
2095-2103
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
DOI
10.1200/jco.2000.18.10.2095
OpenAlex
W2130652363
Cited by
2,181
References
1
FWCI
76.40
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

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.