Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,211

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

Gordon, Alan N., Fleagle, John T., Guthrie, David, Parkin, David E., Gore, Martin E., Lacave, Angel J.·2001·Journal of Clinical Oncology

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2001.19.14.3312

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

See all 1,211

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.