Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 705

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Meta-Analysis of Phase II Cooperative Group Trials in Metastatic Stage IV Melanoma to Determine Progression-Free and Overall Survival Benchmarks for Future Phase II Trials

Korn, Edward L., Liu, Ping-Yu, Lee, Sandra J., Chapman, Judith-Anne W., Niedzwiecki, Donna, Suman, Vera J., Moon, James, Sondak, Vernon K., Atkins, Michael B., Eisenhauer, Elizabeth A., Parulekar, Wendy, Markovic, Svetomir N., Saxman, Scott, Kirkwood, John M.·2008·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Objective tumor response rates observed in phase II trials for metastatic melanoma have historically not provided a reliable indicator of meaningful survival benefits. To facilitate using overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) as an endpoint for future phase II trials, we evaluated historical data from cooperative group phase II trials to attempt to develop benchmarks for OS and PFS as reference points for future phase II trials. Patients and Methods: Individual-level and trial-level data were obtained for patients enrolled onto 42 phase II trials (70 trial arms) that completed accrual in the years 1975 through 2005 and conducted by Southwest Oncology Group, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, Cancer and Leukemia Group B, North Central Cancer Treatment Group, and the Clinical Trials Group of the National Cancer Institute of Canada. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify prognostic variables, and between-trial(-arm) variability in 1-year OS rates and 6-month PFS rates were examined. Results: Statistically significant individual-level and trial-level prognostic factors found in a multivariate survival analysis for OS were performance status, presence of visceral disease, sex, and whether the trial excluded patients with brain metastases. Performance status, sex, and age were statistically significant prognostic factors for PFS. Controlling for these prognostic variables essentially eliminated between-trial variability in 1-year OS rates but not in 6-month PFS rates. Conclusion: Benchmarks are provided for 1-year OS or OS curves that make use of the distribution of prognostic factors of the patients in the phase II trial. A similar benchmark for 6-month PFS is provided, but its use is more problematic because of residual between-trial variation in this endpoint.

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.2007.12.7837

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 705

Metadata

Authors
Korn, E. L., Liu, P.-Y., Lee, S. J., Chapman, J.-A. W., Niedzwiecki, D., Suman, V. J., Moon, J., Sondak, V. K., Atkins, M. B., Eisenhauer, E. A., Parulekar, W., Markovic, S. N., Saxman, S., & Kirkwood, J. M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2008-02-01
Volume
26
Issue
4
Pages
527-534
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2137723371
Cited by
705
References
1
FWCI
2.62
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: Meta-Analysis of Phase II Cooperative Group Trials in Metastatic Stage IV Melanoma to Determine Progression-Free and Overall Survival Benchmarks for Future Phase II Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2007.12.7837
The paper
Korn, E. L., Liu, P.-Y., Lee, S. J., Chapman, J.-A. W., Niedzwiecki, D., Suman, V. J., Moon, J., Sondak, V. K., Atkins, M. B., Eisenhauer, E. A., Parulekar, W., Markovic, S. N., Saxman, S., & Kirkwood, J. M. (2008). Meta-Analysis of Phase II Cooperative Group Trials in Metastatic Stage IV Melanoma to Determine Progression-Free and Overall Survival Benchmarks for Future Phase II Trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.12.7837

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.