Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,748

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

An Intergroup Phase III Comparison of Standard Radiation Therapy and Two Schedules of Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Patients With Unresectable Squamous Cell Head and Neck Cancer

Adelstein, David J., Li, Yi, Adams, George L., Wagner, Henry, Kish, Julie A., Ensley, John F., Schuller, David E., Forastiere, Arlene A.·2003·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: The Head and Neck Intergroup conducted a phase III randomized trial to test the benefit of adding chemotherapy to radiation in patients with unresectable squamous cell head and neck cancer. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients were randomly assigned between arm A (the control), single daily fractionated radiation (70 Gy at 2 Gy/d); arm B, identical radiation therapy with concurrent bolus cisplatin, given on days 1, 22, and 43; and arm C, a split course of single daily fractionated radiation and three cycles of concurrent infusional fluorouracil and bolus cisplatin chemotherapy, 30 Gy given with the first cycle and 30 to 40 Gy given with the third cycle. Surgical resection was encouraged if possible after the second chemotherapy cycle on arm C and, if necessary, as salvage therapy on all three treatment arms. Survival data were compared between each experimental arm and the control arm using a one-sided log-rank test. Results: Between 1992 and 1999, 295 patients were entered on this trial. This did not meet the accrual goal of 362 patients and resulted in premature study closure. Grade 3 or worse toxicity occurred in 52% of patients enrolled in arm A, compared with 89% enrolled in arm B (P < .0001) and 77% enrolled in arm C (P < .001). With a median follow-up of 41 months, the 3-year projected overall survival for patients enrolled in arm A is 23%, compared with 37% for arm B (P = .014) and 27% for arm C (P = not significant). Conclusion: The addition of concurrent high-dose, single-agent cisplatin to conventional single daily fractionated radiation significantly improves survival, although it also increases toxicity. The loss of efficacy resulting from split-course radiation was not offset by either multiagent chemotherapy or the possibility of midcourse surgery.

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.2003.01.008

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 1,748

Metadata

Authors
Adelstein, D. J., Li, Y., Adams, G. L., Wagner, H., Kish, J. A., Ensley, J. F., Schuller, D. E., & Forastiere, A. A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2003-01-01
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
92-98
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2036005555
Cited by
1,748
References
1
FWCI
38.47
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: An Intergroup Phase III Comparison of Standard Radiation Therapy and Two Schedules of Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Patients With Unresectable Squamous Cell Head and Neck Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2003.01.008
The paper
Adelstein, D. J., Li, Y., Adams, G. L., Wagner, H., Kish, J. A., Ensley, J. F., Schuller, D. E., & Forastiere, A. A. (2003). An Intergroup Phase III Comparison of Standard Radiation Therapy and Two Schedules of Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Patients With Unresectable Squamous Cell Head and Neck Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2003.01.008

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.