Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 315

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

Randomized Phase II Study of Erlotinib Combined With Bevacizumab Compared With Bevacizumab Alone in Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer

Bukowski, Ronald M., Kabbinavar, Fairooz F., Figlin, Robert A., Flaherty, Keith, Srinivas, Sandy, Vaishampayan, Ulka, Drabkin, Harry A., Dutcher, Janice, Ryba, Sarah, Xia, Qi, Scappaticci, Frank A., McDermott, David·2007·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Bevacizumab (Bev) has clinical activity in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and, when combined with erlotinib (Erl), has shown encouraging objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). We performed a phase II, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial to assess whether Erl provides additional clinical benefit with regard to PFS and ORR when combined with Bev in first-line treatment of metastatic RCC. Patients and Methods: One hundred four patients received intravenous Bev (10 mg/kg) every 2 weeks in combination with oral Erl (150 mg) or placebo daily. Patients were treated until progression or toxicity. Results: A landmark analysis was performed 9 months after enrollment was completed (median follow-up, 9.8 months). Sixty-five patients had discontinued therapy; time to study discontinuation did not differ between the two treatment groups. The median PFS was 9.9 months (Bev + Erl [B+E]) versus 8.5 months (Bev; hazard ratio = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.5 to 1.49; P = .58). ORR (complete plus partial) was 14% (B+E) versus 13% (Bev). One complete response occurred in the B+E group. Median survival was 20 months for B+E but not reached for Bev. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events (> 5% of patients) were hypertension, rash, proteinuria, diarrhea, and hemorrhage. One treatment-related death occurred on study (GI perforation, B+E group). Conclusion: The addition of Erl to Bev was well tolerated, but did not provide additional clinical benefit compared with Bev alone. Bev has encouraging clinical activity for previously untreated metastatic RCC patients.

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.2007.11.5154

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 315

Metadata

Authors
Bukowski, R. M., Kabbinavar, F. F., Figlin, R. A., Flaherty, K., Srinivas, S., Vaishampayan, U., Drabkin, H. A., Dutcher, J., Ryba, S., Xia, Q., Scappaticci, F. A., & McDermott, D.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2007-10-10
Volume
25
Issue
29
Pages
4536-4541
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2104540972
Cited by
315
References
3
FWCI
42.44
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 Erlotinib Combined With Bevacizumab Compared With Bevacizumab Alone in Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2007.11.5154
The paper
Bukowski, R. M., Kabbinavar, F. F., Figlin, R. A., Flaherty, K., Srinivas, S., Vaishampayan, U., Drabkin, H. A., Dutcher, J., Ryba, S., Xia, Q., Scappaticci, F. A., & McDermott, D. (2007). Randomized Phase II Study of Erlotinib Combined With Bevacizumab Compared With Bevacizumab Alone in Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.11.5154

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.