Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 284

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Chemotherapy Compared With Biochemotherapy for the Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma: A Meta-Analysis of 18 Trials Involving 2,621 Patients

Open access
Ives, Natalie J., Stowe, Rebecca L., Lorigan, Paul, Wheatley, Keith·2007·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the effect of adding interferon-α (IFN) ± interleukin-2 (IL-2) to chemotherapy in patients with metastatic melanoma. Methods: A published data meta-analysis of trials of biochemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic melanoma was undertaken. End points evaluated were rates of partial response (PR), complete response (CR) and overall (partial + complete) response (OR); response duration; progression-free survival; overall survival (OS); and toxicity. The only subgroup analysis performed was by type of immunotherapy, with trials divided according to whether IFN only or IFN and IL-2 were administered in the biochemotherapy arm. Results: Eighteen randomized trials were identified: 11 trials of chemotherapy ± IFN and seven trials of chemotherapy ± IFN and IL-2. More than 2,600 patients were entered onto the trials, with 555 responses and 2,039 deaths. There was a clear benefit for biochemotherapy for PR (odds ratio = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.82; P = .0001), CR (odds ratio = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.73; P = .0003) and OR (odds ratio = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.72; P < .00001). For OR, these benefits were significant for both the IFN (odds ratio = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.79; P = .0002) and IFN + IL-2 (odds ratio = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.77; P = .0001) subgroups. In contrast, there was no benefit overall in OS (odds ratio = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.08; P = .9), but there was evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effect between the individual trials (P = .006). Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides a comprehensive summary of all the data currently available, and shows that although biochemotherapy clearly improves response rates, this does not appear to translate into a survival benefit.

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.2007.12.0253

Cites

27 of 27 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

1 retracted

Show all 27 references

Cited by

See all 284

Metadata

Authors
Ives, N. J., Stowe, R. L., Lorigan, P., & Wheatley, K.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2007-12-01
Volume
25
Issue
34
Pages
5426-5434
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2142967975
Cited by
284
References
27
FWCI
1.51
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: Chemotherapy Compared With Biochemotherapy for the Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma: A Meta-Analysis of 18 Trials Involving 2,621 Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2007.12.0253
The paper
Ives, N. J., Stowe, R. L., Lorigan, P., & Wheatley, K. (2007). Chemotherapy Compared With Biochemotherapy for the Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma: A Meta-Analysis of 18 Trials Involving 2,621 Patients. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.12.0253

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.