The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Randomized Phase II Study of Gemcitabine and Docetaxel Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Patients With Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcomas: Results of Sarcoma Alliance for Research Through Collaboration Study 002
Abstract
Purpose: Gemcitabine as a single agent and the combination of gemcitabine and docetaxel have activity in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. To determine if the addition of docetaxel to gemcitabine improved clinical outcome of patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcomas, we compared a fixed dose rate infusion of gemcitabine versus a lower dose of gemcitabine with docetaxel. Patients and Methods: In this open-label phase II clinical trial, the primary end point was tumor response, defined as complete or partial response or stable disease lasting at least 24 weeks. A Bayesian adaptive randomization procedure was used to produce an imbalance in the randomization in favor of the superior treatment, accounting for treatment-subgroup interactions. Results: One hundred nineteen of 122 randomly assigned patients had assessable outcomes. The adaptive randomization assigned 73 patients (60%) to gemcitabine-docetaxel and 49 patients (40%) to gemcitabine alone, indicating gemcitabine-docetaxel was superior. The objective Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors response rates were 16% (gemcitabine-docetaxel) and 8% (gemcitabine). Given the data, the posterior probabilities that gemcitabine-docetaxel was superior for progression-free and overall survival were 0.98 and 0.97, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 6.2 months for gemcitabine-docetaxel and 3.0 months for gemcitabine alone; median overall survival was 17.9 months for gemcitabine-docetaxel and 11.5 months for gemcitabine. The posterior probability that patients receiving gemcitabine-docetaxel had a shorter time to discontinuation for toxicity compared with gemcitabine alone was .999. Conclusion: Gemcitabine-docetaxel yielded superior progression-free and overall survival to gemcitabine alone, but with increased toxicity. Adaptive randomization is an effective method to reduce the number of patients receiving inferior therapy.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2003) · doi:10.1201/9780429258480 · Cited by 27,276
New Guidelines to Evaluate the Response to Treatment in Solid Tumors
Therasse, P., Arbuck, S. G., Eisenhauer, E. A., Wanders, J., Kaplan, R. S., Rubinstein, L., Verweij, J., Van Glabbeke, M., van Oosterom, A. T., Christian, M. C., et al. (2000) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/92.3.205 · Cited by 15,660
THOMPSON, W. R. (1933) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/25.3-4.285 · Cited by 2,712
Gene expression profiling of human sarcomas: insights into sarcoma biology.
Baird, K., Davis, S., Antonescu, C. R., Harper, U. L., Walker, R. L., Chen, Y., Glatfelter, A. A., Duray, P. H., & Meltzer, P. S. (2005) · Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-05-1699 · Cited by 353
Cited by
van der Graaf, W. T., Blay, J.-Y., Chawla, S. P., Kim, D.-W., Bui-Nguyen, B., Casali, P. G., Schöffski, P., Aglietta, M., Staddon, A. P., Beppu, Y., et al. (2012) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60651-5 · Cited by 2,102
Gronchi, A., Miah, A. B., Dei Tos, A. P., Abecassis, N., Bajpai, J., Bauer, S., Biagini, R., Bielack, S., Blay, J. Y., Bolle, S., et al. (2021) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2021.07.006 · Cited by 1,115
Seddon, B., Strauss, S. J., Whelan, J., Leahy, M., Woll, P. J., Cowie, F., Rothermundt, C., Wood, Z., Benson, C., Ali, N., et al. (2017) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30622-8 · Cited by 528
Palmerini, E., Jones, R. L., Marchesi, E., Paioli, A., Cesari, M., Longhi, A., Meazza, C., Coccoli, L., Fagioli, F., Asaftei, S., et al. (2016) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12885-016-2312-3 · Cited by 98
Pollack, S. M. (2017) · Expert Review of Vaccines · doi:10.1080/14760584.2018.1419068 · Cited by 47
Metadata
- Authors
- Maki, R. G., Wathen, J. K., Patel, S. R., Priebat, D. A., Okuno, S. H., Samuels, B., Fanucchi, M., Harmon, D. C., Schuetze, S. M., Reinke, D., Thall, P. F., Benjamin, R. S., Baker, L. H., & Hensley, M. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2007-07-01
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 2755-2763
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2116025938
- Cited by
- 742
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 24.22
- 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: Randomized Phase II Study of Gemcitabine and Docetaxel Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Patients With Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcomas: Results of Sarcoma Alliance for Research Through Collaboration Study 002. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2006.10.4117
- The paper
- Maki, R. G., Wathen, J. K., Patel, S. R., Priebat, D. A., Okuno, S. H., Samuels, B., Fanucchi, M., Harmon, D. C., Schuetze, S. M., Reinke, D., Thall, P. F., Benjamin, R. S., Baker, L. H., & Hensley, M. L. (2007). Randomized Phase II Study of Gemcitabine and Docetaxel Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Patients With Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcomas: Results of Sarcoma Alliance for Research Through Collaboration Study 002. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.10.4117
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.