Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 280

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Phase III Study of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Fluorouracil and Leucovorin Plus Oxaliplatin in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Final Report of the AIO Colorectal Study Group

Open access
Porschen, Rainer, Arkenau, Hendrik-Tobias, Kubicka, Stephan, Greil, Richard, Seufferlein, Thomas, Freier, Werner, Kretzschmar, Albrecht, Graeven, Ullrich, Grothey, Axel, Hinke, Axel, Schmiegel, Wolff, Schmoll, Hans-Joachim·2007·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the use of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) with infusional fluorouracil (FU)/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FUFOX) as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). Patients and Methods: A total of 474 patients with MCRC received either CAPOX (capecitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 bid, days 1 to 14 plus oxaliplatin 70 mg/m 2 days 1 and 8, repeated every 22 days) ) or FUFOX (oxaliplatin 50 mg/m 2 followed by leucovorin 500 mg/m 2 plus FU 2,000 mg/m 2 as a 22-hour infusion days 1, 8, 15, and 22, repeated every 36 days). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were response rate (RR), overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure, and toxicity. The study was designed to determine noninferiority for the CAPOX regimen. Results: Median PFS was 7.1 months in the CAPOX arm and 8.0 months in the FUFOX arm (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.43; P = .117). Median OS was 16.8 months (CAPOX) and 18.8 months (FUFOX; HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.38; P = .26). Overall RRs were 48% for CAPOX (95% CI, 41% to 54%) and 54% for FUFOX (95% CI, 47% to 60%). Both regimens were generally well tolerated, although there was a significantly higher incidence of grade 2/3 hand-foot syndrome (HFS) in the CAPOX arm (P = .028). Conclusion: CAPOX resulted in a slightly inferior efficacy than FUFOX. With respect to PFS, the best estimate of the HR of 1.17 was within the prespecified equivalence range. However, a relevant inferiority cannot be excluded. Both regimens were generally well tolerated but there was a significantly higher rate of grade 2/3 HFS in the CAPOX arm.

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.2006.09.2684

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 280

Metadata

Authors
Porschen, R., Arkenau, H.-T., Kubicka, S., Greil, R., Seufferlein, T., Freier, W., Kretzschmar, A., Graeven, U., Grothey, A., Hinke, A., Schmiegel, W., & Schmoll, H.-J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2007-09-20
Volume
25
Issue
27
Pages
4217-4223
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2044792687
Cited by
280
References
2
FWCI
16.30
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 Study of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Fluorouracil and Leucovorin Plus Oxaliplatin in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Final Report of the AIO Colorectal Study Group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2006.09.2684
The paper
Porschen, R., Arkenau, H.-T., Kubicka, S., Greil, R., Seufferlein, T., Freier, W., Kretzschmar, A., Graeven, U., Grothey, A., Hinke, A., Schmiegel, W., & Schmoll, H.-J. (2007). Phase III Study of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Fluorouracil and Leucovorin Plus Oxaliplatin in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Final Report of the AIO Colorectal Study Group. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.09.2684

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.