The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase III Study of Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin Versus Topotecan
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) and topotecan in patients with epithelial ovarian carcinoma that recurred after or didn’t respond to first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable and assessable disease were randomized to receive either PLD 50 mg/m 2 as a 1-hour infusion every 4 weeks or topotecan 1.5 mg/m 2/d for 5 consecutive days every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified prospectively for platinum sensitivity and for the presence or absence of bulky disease. RESULTS: A total of 474 patients were treated (239 PLD and 235 topotecan). They comprised the intent-to-treat population. The overall progression-free survival rates were similar between the two arms (P = .095). The overall response rates for PLD and topotecan were 19.7% and 17.0%, respectively (P = .390). Median overall survival times were 60 weeks for PLD and 56.7 weeks for topotecan. Data analyzed in platinum-sensitive patients demonstrated a statistically significant benefit from PLD for progression-free survival (P = .037), with medians of 28.9 for PLD versus 23.3 weeks for topotecan. For overall survival, PLD was significantly superior to topotecan (P = .008), with a median of 108 weeks versus 71.1 weeks. The platinum-refractory subgroup demonstrated a nonstatistically significant survival trend in favor of topotecan (P = .455). Severe hematologic toxicity was more common with topotecan and was more likely to be associated with dosage modification, or growth factor or blood product utilization. CONCLUSION: The comparable efficacy, favorable safety profile, and convenient dosing support the role of PLD as a valuable treatment option in this patient population.
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
Cites
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S. B., Haes, J. C. J. M. D., et al. (1993) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/85.5.365 · Cited by 16,005
Cited by
Doxil® — The first FDA-approved nano-drug: Lessons learned
Barenholz, Y. (. (2012) · Journal of Controlled Release · doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.03.020 · Cited by 4,792
Effect of pegylation on pharmaceuticals
Harris, J. M., & Chess, R. B. (2003) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd1033 · Cited by 3,431
Drug targeting to tumors: Principles, pitfalls and (pre-) clinical progress
Lammers, T., Kiessling, F., Hennink, W. E., & Storm, G. (2012) · Journal of Controlled Release · doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2011.09.063 · Cited by 1,324
Danhier, F. (2016) · Journal of Controlled Release · doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.11.015 · Cited by 1,288
Barua, S., & Mitragotri, S. (2014) · Nano Today · doi:10.1016/j.nantod.2014.04.008 · Cited by 1,257
Metadata
- Authors
- Gordon, A. N., Fleagle, J. T., Guthrie, D., Parkin, D. E., Gore, M. E., & Lacave, A. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2001-07-15
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 3312-3322
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W1960327677
- Cited by
- 1,211
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 50.85
- 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: Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase III Study of Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin Versus Topotecan. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2001.19.14.3312
- The paper
- Gordon, A. N., Fleagle, J. T., Guthrie, D., Parkin, D. E., Gore, M. E., & Lacave, A. J. (2001). Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase III Study of Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin Versus Topotecan. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.14.3312
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.