Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 218

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Ixabepilone Plus Capecitabine Versus Capecitabine in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Previously Treated With an Anthracycline and a Taxane

Open access
Sparano, Joseph A., Vrdoljak, Eduard, Rixe, Oliver, Xu, Binghe, Manikhas, Alexey, Medina, Carlos, Ventilari Da Costa, Susanne Crocamo, Ro, Jungsil, Rubio, Gonzalo, Rondinon, Monica, Perez Manga, Gumersindo, Peck, Ronald, Poulart, Valerie, Conte, Pierfranco·2010·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: We sought to determine whether the combination of ixabepilone plus capecitabine improved overall survival (OS) compared with capecitabine alone in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes. Patients and Methods: A total of 1,221 patients with MBC previously treated with anthracycline and taxanes were randomly assigned to ixabepilone (40 mg/m 2 intravenously on day 1) plus capecitabine (2,000 mg/m 2 orally on days 1 through 14) or capecitabine alone (2,500 mg/m 2 on the same schedule) given every 21 days. The trial was powered to detect a 20% reduction in the hazard ratio (HR) for death. Results: There was no significant difference in OS between the combination and capecitabine monotherapy arm, the primary end point (median, 16.4 v 15.6 months; HR = 0.9; 95% CI, 078 to 1.03; P = .1162). The arms were well balanced with the exception of a higher prevalence of impaired performance status (Karnofsky performance status 70% to 80%) in the combination arm (32% v 25%). In a secondary Cox regression analysis adjusted for performance status and other prognostic factors, OS was improved for the combination (HR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.98; P = .0231). In 79% of patients with measurable disease, the combination significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS; median, 6.2 v 4.2 months; HR = 0.79; P = .0005) and response rate (43% v 29%; P < .0001). Grade 3 to 4 neuropathy occurred in 24% treated with the combination, but was reversible. Conclusion: This study confirmed a previous trial demonstrating improved PFS and response for the ixabepilone-capecitabine combination compared with capecitabine alone, although this did not result in improved survival.

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.2009.24.4244

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.

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

Cited by

See all 218

Metadata

Authors
Sparano, J. A., Vrdoljak, E., Rixe, O., Xu, B., Manikhas, A., Medina, C., Ventilari Da Costa, S. C., Ro, J., Rubio, G., Rondinon, M., Perez Manga, G., Peck, R., Poulart, V., & Conte, P.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2010-07-10
Volume
28
Issue
20
Pages
3256-3263
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2150296977
Cited by
218
References
0
FWCI
12.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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 III Trial of Ixabepilone Plus Capecitabine Versus Capecitabine in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Previously Treated With an Anthracycline and a Taxane. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2009.24.4244
The paper
Sparano, J. A., Vrdoljak, E., Rixe, O., Xu, B., Manikhas, A., Medina, C., Ventilari Da Costa, S. C., Ro, J., Rubio, G., Rondinon, M., Perez Manga, G., Peck, R., Poulart, V., & Conte, P. (2010). Randomized Phase III Trial of Ixabepilone Plus Capecitabine Versus Capecitabine in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Previously Treated With an Anthracycline and a Taxane. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.24.4244

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.