Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,306

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Capecitabine Compared With Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine in Patients With Previously Treated Metastatic Breast Cancer

Open access
Miller, Kathy D., Chap, Linnea I., Holmes, Frankie A., Cobleigh, Melody A., Marcom, P. Kelly, Fehrenbacher, Louis, Dickler, Maura, Overmoyer, Beth A., Reimann, James D., Sing, Amy P., Langmuir, Virginia, Rugo, Hope S.·2005·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: This randomized phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of capecitabine with or without bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor, in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane. Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive capecitabine (2,500 mg/m 2/d) twice daily on day 1 through 14 every 3 weeks, alone or in combination with bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) on day 1. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), as determined by an independent review facility. Results: From November 2000 to March 2002, 462 patients were enrolled. Treatment arms were balanced. No significant differences were found in the incidence of diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, thromboembolic events, or serious bleeding episodes between treatment groups. Of other grade 3 or 4 adverse events, only hypertension requiring treatment (17.9% v 0.5%) was more frequent in patients receiving bevacizumab. Combination therapy significantly increased the response rates (19.8% v 9.1%; P = .001); however, this did not result in a longer PFS (4.86 v 4.17 months; hazard ratio = 0.98). Overall survival (15.1 v 14.5 months) and time to deterioration in quality of life as measured by the Functional Assessment Of Cancer Treatment—Breast were comparable in both treatment groups. Conclusion: Bevacizumab was well tolerated in this heavily pretreated patient population. Although the addition of bevacizumab to capecitabine produced a significant increase in response rates, this did not translate into improved PFS or overall survival.

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.2005.05.098

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 1,306

Metadata

Authors
Miller, K. D., Chap, L. I., Holmes, F. A., Cobleigh, M. A., Marcom, P. K., Fehrenbacher, L., Dickler, M., Overmoyer, B. A., Reimann, J. D., Sing, A. P., Langmuir, V., & Rugo, H. S.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2005-02-01
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
792-799
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2114159573
Cited by
1,306
References
3
FWCI
56.53
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: Randomized Phase III Trial of Capecitabine Compared With Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine in Patients With Previously Treated Metastatic Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2005.05.098
The paper
Miller, K. D., Chap, L. I., Holmes, F. A., Cobleigh, M. A., Marcom, P. K., Fehrenbacher, L., Dickler, M., Overmoyer, B. A., Reimann, J. D., Sing, A. P., Langmuir, V., & Rugo, H. S. (2005). Randomized Phase III Trial of Capecitabine Compared With Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine in Patients With Previously Treated Metastatic Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.05.098

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.