Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 308

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

Doxorubicin and Paclitaxel Versus Fluorouracil, Doxorubicin, and Cyclophosphamide as First-Line Therapy for Women With Metastatic Breast Cancer: Final Results of a Randomized Phase III Multicenter Trial

Jassem, Jacek, Pieńkowski, Tadeusz, Płuzańska, Anna, Jelic, Svetislav, Gorbunova, Vera, Mrsic-Krmpotic, Zrinka, Berzins, Juris, Nagykalnai, Tomas, Wigler, Nelly, Renard, Josette, Munier, Stephane, Weil, Catherine·2001·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: This phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) to 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) as first-line therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 267 women with metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive either AT (doxorubicin 50 mg/m 2 followed 24 hours later by paclitaxel 220 mg/m 2) or FAC (5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m 2, doxorubicin 50 mg/m 2, cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m 2), each administered every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles. Patients had to have measurable disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2. Only one prior non–anthracycline, nontaxane-containing adjuvant chemotherapy regimen was allowed. RESULTS: Overall response rates for patients randomized to AT and FAC were 68% and 55%, respectively (P = .032). Median time to progression and overall survival were significantly longer for AT compared with FAC (time to progression 8.3 months v 6.2 months [P = .034]; overall survival 23.3 months v 18.3 months [P = .013]). Therapy was generally well-tolerated (median of eight cycles delivered in each arm). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was more common with AT than with FAC (89% v 65%; P < .001); however, the incidence of fever and infection was low. Grade 3 or 4 arthralgia and myalgia, peripheral neuropathy, and diarrhea were more common with AT, whereas nausea and vomiting were more common with FAC. The incidence of cardiotoxicity was low in both arms. CONCLUSION: AT conferred a significant advantage in response rate, time to progression, and overall survival compared with FAC. Treatment was well-tolerated with no unexpected toxicities.

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.2001.19.6.1707

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 308

Metadata

Authors
Jassem, J., Pieńkowski, T., Płuzańska, A., Jelic, S., Gorbunova, V., Mrsic-Krmpotic, Z., Berzins, J., Nagykalnai, T., Wigler, N., Renard, J., Munier, S., & Weil, C.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2001-03-15
Volume
19
Issue
6
Pages
1707-1715
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1923449517
Cited by
308
References
1
FWCI
11.94
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: Doxorubicin and Paclitaxel Versus Fluorouracil, Doxorubicin, and Cyclophosphamide as First-Line Therapy for Women With Metastatic Breast Cancer: Final Results of a Randomized Phase III Multicenter Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2001.19.6.1707
The paper
Jassem, J., Pieńkowski, T., Płuzańska, A., Jelic, S., Gorbunova, V., Mrsic-Krmpotic, Z., Berzins, J., Nagykalnai, T., Wigler, N., Renard, J., Munier, S., & Weil, C. (2001). Doxorubicin and Paclitaxel Versus Fluorouracil, Doxorubicin, and Cyclophosphamide as First-Line Therapy for Women With Metastatic Breast Cancer: Final Results of a Randomized Phase III Multicenter Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.6.1707

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.