Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 209

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

Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind Study of Epoetin Alfa Compared With Placebo in Anemic Patients Receiving Chemotherapy

Open access
Witzig, Thomas E., Silberstein, Peter T., Loprinzi, Charles L., Sloan, Jeff A., Novotny, Paul J., Mailliard, James A., Rowland, Kendrith M., Alberts, Steven R., Krook, James E., Levitt, Ralph, Morton, Roscoe F.·2005·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To determine whether weekly epoetin alfa could improve hemoglobin (HgB) levels, reduce RBC transfusions, and improve quality of life (QOL) in patients with advanced cancer and with anemia after receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Patients and Methods: This double-blind, placebo-controlled study randomly assigned patients to placebo or epoetin alfa (Ortho Biotech, Bridgewater, NJ) 40,000 U subcutaneous weekly for 16 weeks. QOL, HgB, and RBC transfusions were measured pretreatment and monthly. Results: The study accrued 344 patients; 330 were assessable for efficacy and 305 were assessable for QOL. Placebo-treated patients had a mean increase in HgB of 0.9 g/dL (range, −3.8 to +5.3) compared with 2.8 g/dL (range, −2.2 to +7.5) for epoetin-treated patients (P < .0001). During the study, 31.7% of placebo-treated patients achieved a ≥ 2 g/dL HgB increase compared with 72.7% of epoetin-treated patients (P < .0001). The incidence of RBC transfusion for placebo and epoetin treatment arms was 39.6% and 25.3% (P = .005), respectively. The placebo group received 256 units of RBCs compared with 127 units in the epoetin group (P < .0001). The incidence of toxicity in the groups was similar. Changes in the average QOL scores from baseline to the end of the study were similar in the two groups (P = not significant). The HgB responders (irrespective of treatment arm) had a mean change in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) fatigue score from a baseline of +5.1 compared with −2.1 for the nonresponders (P = .006). Conclusion: Epoetin alfa significantly improved HgB and reduced transfusions in this patient population. These results support the use of weekly epoetin alfa as an ameliorative agent for cancer-related anemia.

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.2004.10.020

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 209

Metadata

Authors
Witzig, T. E., Silberstein, P. T., Loprinzi, C. L., Sloan, J. A., Novotny, P. J., Mailliard, J. A., Rowland, K. M., Alberts, S. R., Krook, J. E., Levitt, R., & Morton, R. F.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2005-04-20
Volume
23
Issue
12
Pages
2606-2617
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2138416329
Cited by
209
References
1
FWCI
15.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind Study of Epoetin Alfa Compared With Placebo in Anemic Patients Receiving Chemotherapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2004.10.020
The paper
Witzig, T. E., Silberstein, P. T., Loprinzi, C. L., Sloan, J. A., Novotny, P. J., Mailliard, J. A., Rowland, K. M., Alberts, S. R., Krook, J. E., Levitt, R., & Morton, R. F. (2005). Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind Study of Epoetin Alfa Compared With Placebo in Anemic Patients Receiving Chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2004.10.020

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.