Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 484

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prognostic Factors in Metastatic Rhabdomyosarcomas: Results of a Pooled Analysis From United States and European Cooperative Groups

Open access
Oberlin, Odile, Rey, Annie, Lyden, Elizabeth, Bisogno, Gianni, Stevens, Michael C.G., Meyer, William H., Carli, Modesto, Anderson, James R.·2008·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To identify risk factors associated with outcome in children with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma in a large cohort of patients Patients and Methods: Pooled data were obtained from 788 patients treated in nine studies performed by European and American cooperative groups. Clinical factors, including age, histology, site of primary, and site(s) and number of sites of metastatic disease, were correlated with event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: Seven hundred eighty-eight patients were eligible for analysis. The 3-year OS and EFS were 34% (SE, 1.7) and 27% (SE, 1.6), respectively. By univariate analysis, 3-year EFS was significantly and adversely influenced by age, alveolar histology, location of primary tumor in unfavorable site (defined as extremity and “other” sites), presence of three or more sites of metastatic disease, and the presence of bone or bone marrow involvement. By multivariate analysis, EFS was strongly correlated to all factors except histology. Relative risks were 1.6 for age younger than 1 year or at least 10 years, 1.4 for unfavorable site of primary tumor, 1.4 for bone or bone marrow involvement, 1.4 for three or more metastatic sites. EFS was 50% for patients without any of these four adverse factors and was respectively 42%, 18%, 12%, and 5% in patients with one, two, three, or four factors (P < .0001). Conclusion: This analysis identified subsets of patients with metastatic rhabdomyosaroma with different outcomes to current therapy and offers a strategy to define patient candidates for experimental approaches to treatment.

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.2007.14.7207

Cites

23 of 23 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 23 references

Cited by

See all 484

Metadata

Authors
Oberlin, O., Rey, A., Lyden, E., Bisogno, G., Stevens, M. C. G., Meyer, W. H., Carli, M., & Anderson, J. R.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2008-05-10
Volume
26
Issue
14
Pages
2384-2389
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2100034382
Cited by
484
References
23
FWCI
12.80
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: Prognostic Factors in Metastatic Rhabdomyosarcomas: Results of a Pooled Analysis From United States and European Cooperative Groups. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2007.14.7207
The paper
Oberlin, O., Rey, A., Lyden, E., Bisogno, G., Stevens, M. C. G., Meyer, W. H., Carli, M., & Anderson, J. R. (2008). Prognostic Factors in Metastatic Rhabdomyosarcomas: Results of a Pooled Analysis From United States and European Cooperative Groups. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.14.7207

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.