Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 646

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

Superiority of Oxaliplatin and Fluorouracil-Leucovorin Compared With Either Therapy Alone in Patients With Progressive Colorectal Cancer After Irinotecan and Fluorouracil-Leucovorin: Interim Results of a Phase III Trial

Rothenberg, Mace L., Oza, Amit M., Bigelow, Robert H., Berlin, Jordan D., Marshall, John L., Ramanathan, Ramesh K., Hart, Lowell L., Gupta, Sunil, Garay, Carlos A., Burger, Brent G., Le Bail, Nathalie, Haller, Daniel G.·2003·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: In North America, no effective therapy has been available for patients with progressive metastatic colorectal cancer after front-line treatment with irinotecan, bolus fluorouracil (FU), and leucovorin (IFL). Patients and Methods: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who progressed after IFL therapy were randomly assigned to bolus and infusional FU and leucovorin (LV5FU2), single-agent oxaliplatin, or the combination (FOLFOX4). This planned interim analysis evaluated objective response rate (RR), time to tumor progression (TTP), and alleviation of tumor-related symptoms (TRS) in an initial cohort of patients. Results: Between November 2000 and September 2001, 463 patients from 120 sites in North America were randomly assigned to treatment. FOLFOX4 proved superior to LV5FU2 in all measures of clinical efficacy. Objective RRs determined by an independent radiology panel were 9.9% for FOLFOX4 versus 0% for LV5FU2 (Fisher’s exact test, P < .0001). Median TTP was 4.6 months for FOLFOX4 versus 2.7 months for LV5FU2 (two-sided, stratified log-rank test, P < .0001). Relief of TRS occurred in 33% of patients treated with FOLFOX4 versus 12% of patients treated with LVFU2 (χ 2 test, P < .001). Single-agent oxaliplatin was not superior to LV5FU2 in any measure of efficacy. Patients treated with FOLFOX4 experienced a higher incidence of clinically significant toxicities than patients treated with LV5FU2, but these toxicities were predictable and did not result in a higher rate of treatment discontinuation or 60-day mortality rate. Conclusion: For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, second-line treatment with FOLFOX4 is superior to treatment with LVFU2 in terms of RR, TTP, and relief of TRS.

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.2003.11.126

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 646

Metadata

Authors
Rothenberg, M. L., Oza, A. M., Bigelow, R. H., Berlin, J. D., Marshall, J. L., Ramanathan, R. K., Hart, L. L., Gupta, S., Garay, C. A., Burger, B. G., Le Bail, N., & Haller, D. G.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2003-06-01
Volume
21
Issue
11
Pages
2059-2069
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2123133140
Cited by
646
References
1
FWCI
27.40
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: Superiority of Oxaliplatin and Fluorouracil-Leucovorin Compared With Either Therapy Alone in Patients With Progressive Colorectal Cancer After Irinotecan and Fluorouracil-Leucovorin: Interim Results of a Phase III Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2003.11.126
The paper
Rothenberg, M. L., Oza, A. M., Bigelow, R. H., Berlin, J. D., Marshall, J. L., Ramanathan, R. K., Hart, L. L., Gupta, S., Garay, C. A., Burger, B. G., Le Bail, N., & Haller, D. G. (2003). Superiority of Oxaliplatin and Fluorouracil-Leucovorin Compared With Either Therapy Alone in Patients With Progressive Colorectal Cancer After Irinotecan and Fluorouracil-Leucovorin: Interim Results of a Phase III Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2003.11.126

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.