Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 790

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Randomized Study of High-Dose and Low-Dose Interleukin-2 in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cancer

Open access
Yang, James C., Sherry, Richard M., Steinberg, Seth M., Topalian, Suzanne L., Schwartzentruber, Douglas J., Hwu, Patrick, Seipp, Claudia A., Rogers-Freezer, Linda, Morton, Kathleen E., White, Donald E., Liewehr, David J., Merino, Maria J., Rosenberg, Steven A.·2003·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: This three-arm randomized study compares response rates and overall survival of patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (RCC) receiving high-dose or one of two low-dose interleukin-2 (IL-2) regimens. Patients and Methods: Patients with measurable metastatic RCC and a good performance status were randomized to receive either 720,000 U/kg (high-dose [HD]) or 72,000 U/kg (low-dose [LD]), both given by intravenous (IV) bolus every 8 hours. After randomly assigning 117 patients, a third arm of low-dose daily subcutaneous IL-2 was added, and an additional 283 patients were randomly assigned. Results: A total of 156 patients were randomly assigned to HD IV IL-2, and 150 patients to LD IV IL-2. Toxicities were less frequent with LD IV IL-2 (especially hypotension), but there were no IL-2-related deaths in any arm. There was a higher response proportion with HD IV IL-2 (21%) versus LD IV IL-2 (13%; P = .048) but no overall survival difference. The response rate of subcutaneous IL-2 (10%, partial response and complete response) was similar to that of LD IV IL-2, differing from HD IV (P = .033). Response durability and survival in completely responding patients was superior with HD IV compared with LD IV therapy (P = .04). Conclusion: Major tumor regressions, as well as complete responses, were seen with all regimens tested. IL-2 was more clinically active at maximal doses, although this did not produce an overall survival benefit. The immunological factors which constrain the curative potential of IL-2 to only a small percentage of patients need to be further elucidated.

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.2003.02.122

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.

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

Cited by

See all 790

Metadata

Authors
Yang, J. C., Sherry, R. M., Steinberg, S. M., Topalian, S. L., Schwartzentruber, D. J., Hwu, P., Seipp, C. A., Rogers-Freezer, L., Morton, K. E., White, D. E., Liewehr, D. J., Merino, M. J., & Rosenberg, S. A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2003-08-15
Volume
21
Issue
16
Pages
3127-3132
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2098136315
Cited by
790
References
0
FWCI
41.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Randomized Study of High-Dose and Low-Dose Interleukin-2 in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2003.02.122
The paper
Yang, J. C., Sherry, R. M., Steinberg, S. M., Topalian, S. L., Schwartzentruber, D. J., Hwu, P., Seipp, C. A., Rogers-Freezer, L., Morton, K. E., White, D. E., Liewehr, D. J., Merino, M. J., & Rosenberg, S. A. (2003). Randomized Study of High-Dose and Low-Dose Interleukin-2 in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2003.02.122

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.