Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 226

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Phase II Study of Bevacizumab in Combination With Chemotherapy in Previously Untreated Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the SALUTE Trial

Open access
Spigel, David R., Townley, Peter M., Waterhouse, David M., Fang, Liang, Adiguzel, Ibrahim, Huang, Jane E., Karlin, David A., Faoro, Leonardo, Scappaticci, Frank A., Socinski, Mark A.·2011·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Because of promising efficacy signals in single-arm studies, a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized phase II trial was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding bevacizumab to first-line standard chemotherapy for treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Patients and Methods: Patients with SCLC were randomly assigned to receive bevacizumab or placebo, with cisplatin or carboplatin plus etoposide, for four cycles followed by single-agent bevacizumab or placebo until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Fifty-two patients were randomly assigned to the bevacizumab group and 50 to the placebo group; 69% versus 66%, respectively, completed four cycles of therapy. Median PFS was higher in the bevacizumab group (5.5 months) than in the placebo group (4.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.86). Median overall survival (OS) was similar for both groups (9.4 v 10.9 months for bevacizumab and placebo groups, respectively), with an HR of 1.16 (95% CI, 0.66 to 2.04). Overall response rates were 58% (95% CI, 43% to 71%) for the bevacizumab group and 48% (95% CI, 34% to 62%) for the placebo group. Median duration of response was 4.7 months for the bevacizumab group and 3.2 months for the placebo group. In the bevacizumab and placebo groups, 75% versus 60% of patients, respectively, experienced one or more grade 3 or higher adverse events. No new or unexpected safety signals for bevacizumab were observed. Conclusion: The addition of bevacizumab to cisplatin or carboplatin plus etoposide for treatment of extensive-stage SCLC improved PFS, with an acceptable toxicity profile. However, no improvement in OS was observed.

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.2010.29.3423

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 226

Metadata

Authors
Spigel, D. R., Townley, P. M., Waterhouse, D. M., Fang, L., Adiguzel, I., Huang, J. E., Karlin, D. A., Faoro, L., Scappaticci, F. A., & Socinski, M. A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2011-06-01
Volume
29
Issue
16
Pages
2215-2222
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2145708352
Cited by
226
References
5
FWCI
6.62
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: Randomized Phase II Study of Bevacizumab in Combination With Chemotherapy in Previously Untreated Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the SALUTE Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2010.29.3423
The paper
Spigel, D. R., Townley, P. M., Waterhouse, D. M., Fang, L., Adiguzel, I., Huang, J. E., Karlin, D. A., Faoro, L., Scappaticci, F. A., & Socinski, M. A. (2011). Randomized Phase II Study of Bevacizumab in Combination With Chemotherapy in Previously Untreated Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the SALUTE Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2010.29.3423

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.