Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,040

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

Prognostic Factors in Ewing’s Tumor of Bone: Analysis of 975 Patients From the European Intergroup Cooperative Ewing’s Sarcoma Study Group

Cotterill, S.J., Ahrens, S., Paulussen, M., Jürgens, H.F., Voûte, P.A., Gadner, H., Craft, A.W.·2000·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To further elaborate on prognostic factors for Ewing’s sarcoma of bone and to document improvements in relapse-free survival (RFS) and trends in local therapy over the study period (1977 to 1993). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on a combined Gesellschaft Für Pädiatrische Onkologie und Hämatologie/Cooperative Ewing Sarcoma Study and United Kingdom Children’s Cancer Study Group/Medical Research Council data set of 975 patients registered with the respective trial offices before the current collaborative European Intergroup Cooperative Ewing’s Sarcoma Study trial. Both groups independently undertook studies with similar chemotherapy during the period. RESULTS: The key adverse prognostic factor is metastases at diagnosis (5-year RFS, 22% of patients with metastases at diagnosis v 55% of patients without metastases at diagnosis; P < .0001). For the group with metastases, there was a trend for better survival for those with lung involvement compared with those with bone metastases or a combination of lung and bone metastases (P < .0001). In the group of patients with no metastases at diagnosis, multivariate analysis demonstrated that site (axial v other), age-group (< 15 v ≥ 15 years), and period of diagnosis had significant influence on RFS (all P < .005). RFS was superior in the period after 1985 compared with the period before 1985 for nonmetastatic patients (45% v 60%, respectively; P < .0001) and for metastatic patients (16% v 30%, respectively; P = .016). Patients who relapsed within 2 years of diagnosis had a less favorable prognosis than patients who relapsed later (5-year survival after relapse, 4% v 23%, respectively; P < .0001). There were other changes over the period; in particular, radiotherapy or amputation were more common in the period before 1986, whereas endoprosthetic surgery was widely used in the later period. CONCLUSION: Survival and RFS improved over the period. Prognostic factors are metastases at diagnosis, primary site, and age.

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.2000.18.17.3108

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

See all 1,040

Metadata

Authors
Cotterill, S. J., Ahrens, S., Paulussen, M., Jürgens, H. F., Voûte, P. A., Gadner, H., & Craft, A. W.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2000-09-17
Volume
18
Issue
17
Pages
3108-3114
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2103460784
Cited by
1,040
References
1
FWCI
13.16
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: Prognostic Factors in Ewing’s Tumor of Bone: Analysis of 975 Patients From the European Intergroup Cooperative Ewing’s Sarcoma Study Group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2000.18.17.3108
The paper
Cotterill, S. J., Ahrens, S., Paulussen, M., Jürgens, H. F., Voûte, P. A., Gadner, H., & Craft, A. W. (2000). Prognostic Factors in Ewing’s Tumor of Bone: Analysis of 975 Patients From the European Intergroup Cooperative Ewing’s Sarcoma Study Group. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2000.18.17.3108

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.