Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 384

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Docetaxel and Doxorubicin Compared With Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide as First-Line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer: Results of a Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Trial

Nabholtz, Jean-Marc, Falkson, Carla, Campos, Daniel, Szanto, Janos, Martin, Miguel, Chan, Stephen, Pienkowski, Tadeuz, Zaluski, Jerzy, Pinter, Tamas, Krzakowski, Maciej, Vorobiof, Daniel, Leonard, Robert, Kennedy, Ian, Azli, Nacer, Murawsky, Michael, Riva, Alessandro, Pouillart, Pierre·2003·Journal of Clinical Oncology
DOI 10.1200/jco.2003.04.040
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: This randomized, multicenter, phase III study compared doxorubicin and docetaxel (AT) with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) as first-line chemotherapy (CT) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients and Methods: Patients (n = 429) were randomly assigned to receive doxorubicin 50 mg/m 2 plus docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 (n = 214) or doxorubicin 60 mg/m 2 plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m 2 (n = 215) on day 1, every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles. Results: Time to progression (TTP; primary end point) and time to treatment failure (TTF) were significantly longer with AT than AC (median TTP, 37.3 v 31.9 weeks; log-rank P = .014; median TTF, 25.6 v 23.7 weeks; log-rank P = .048). The overall response rate (ORR) was significantly greater for patients taking AT (59%, with 10% complete response [CR], 49% partial response [PR]) than for those taking AC (47%, with 7% CR, 39% PR) (P = .009). The ORR was also higher with AT in patients with visceral involvement (58% v 41%; liver, 62% v 42%; lung, 58% v 35%), three or more organs involved (59% v 40%), or prior adjuvant CT (53% v 41%). Overall survival (OS) was comparable in both arms. Grade 3/4 neutropenia was frequent in both groups, although febrile neutropenia and infections were more frequent for patients taking AT (respectively, 33% v 10%, P < .001; 8% v 2%, P = .01). Severe nonhematologic toxicity was infrequent in both groups, including grade 3/4 cardiac events (AT, 3%; AC, 4%). Conclusion: AT significantly improves TTP and ORR compared with AC in patients with MBC, but there is no difference in OS. AT represents a valid option for the treatment of MBC.

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.2003.04.040

Cites

14 of 14 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 14 references

Cited by

See all 384

Metadata

Authors
Nabholtz, J.-M., Falkson, C., Campos, D., Szanto, J., Martin, M., Chan, S., Pienkowski, T., Zaluski, J., Pinter, T., Krzakowski, M., Vorobiof, D., Leonard, R., Kennedy, I., Azli, N., Murawsky, M., Riva, A., & Pouillart, P.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Publisher
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Published
2003-03-15
Volume
21
Issue
6
Pages
968-975
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
DOI
10.1200/jco.2003.04.040
OpenAlex
W2107577958
Cited by
384
References
14
FWCI
14.57
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: Docetaxel and Doxorubicin Compared With Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide as First-Line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer: Results of a Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2003.04.040
The paper
Nabholtz, J.-M., Falkson, C., Campos, D., Szanto, J., Martin, M., Chan, S., Pienkowski, T., Zaluski, J., Pinter, T., Krzakowski, M., Vorobiof, D., Leonard, R., Kennedy, I., Azli, N., Murawsky, M., Riva, A., & Pouillart, P. (2003). Docetaxel and Doxorubicin Compared With Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide as First-Line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer: Results of a Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2003.04.040

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.