The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Gemcitabine Alone Versus Gemcitabine Plus Radiotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the role of radiation therapy with concurrent gemcitabine (GEM) compared with GEM alone in patients with localized unresectable pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods: Patients with localized unresectable adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomly assigned to receive GEM alone (at 1,000 mg/m 2 /wk for weeks 1 to 6, followed by 1 week rest, then for 3 of 4 weeks) or GEM (600 mg/m 2 /wk for weeks 1 to 5, then 4 weeks later 1,000 mg/m 2 for 3 of 4 weeks) plus radiotherapy (starting on day 1, 1.8 Gy/Fx for total of 50.4 Gy). Measurement of quality of life using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Hepatobiliary questionnaire was also performed. Results: Of 74 patients entered on trial and randomly assigned to receive GEM alone (arm A; n = 37) or GEM plus radiation (arm B; n = 34), patients in arm B had greater incidence of grades 4 and 5 toxicities (41% v 9%), but grades 3 and 4 toxicities combined were similar (77% in A v 79% in B). No statistical differences were seen in quality of life measurements at 6, 15 to 16, and 36 weeks. The primary end point was survival, which was 9.2 months (95% CI, 7.9 to 11.4 months) and 11.1 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 15.5 months) for arms A and B, respectively (one-sided P = .017 by stratified log-rank test). Conclusion: This trial demonstrates improved overall survival with the addition of radiation therapy to GEM in patients with localized unresectable pancreatic cancer, with acceptable toxicity.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Ward, E., Hao, Y., Xu, J., & Thun, M. J. (2009) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.20006 · Cited by 9,709
Moore, M. J., Goldstein, D., Hamm, J., Figer, A., Hecht, J. R., Gallinger, S., Au, H. J., Murawa, P., Walde, D., Wolff, R. A., et al. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2006.07.9525 · Cited by 3,848
Cited by
Mizrahi, J. D., Surana, R., Valle, J. W., & Shroff, R. T. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30974-0 · Cited by 2,559
Ryan, D. P., Hong, T. S., & Bardeesy, N. (2014) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra1404198 · Cited by 2,348
Kamisawa, T., Wood, L. D., Itoi, T., & Takaori, K. (2016) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)00141-0 · Cited by 2,212
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology
Tempero, M. A., Malafa, M. P., Al-Hawary, M., Asbun, H., Bain, A., Behrman, S. W., Benson, A. B., Binder, E., Cardin, D. B., Cha, C., et al. (2017) · Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network · doi:10.6004/jnccn.2017.0131 · Cited by 1,020
Self-citationSeufferlein, T., Bachet, J. B., Van Cutsem, E., & Rougier, P. (2012) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mds224 · Cited by 389
Metadata
- Authors
- Loehrer, P. J., Feng, Y., Cardenes, H., Wagner, L., Brell, J. M., Cella, D., Flynn, P., Ramanathan, R. K., Crane, C. H., Alberts, S. R., & Benson, A. B.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2011-11-01
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 31
- Pages
- 4105-4112
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2103711657
- Cited by
- 830
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 23.30
- 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: Gemcitabine Alone Versus Gemcitabine Plus Radiotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2011.34.8904
- The paper
- Loehrer, P. J., Feng, Y., Cardenes, H., Wagner, L., Brell, J. M., Cella, D., Flynn, P., Ramanathan, R. K., Crane, C. H., Alberts, S. R., & Benson, A. B. (2011). Gemcitabine Alone Versus Gemcitabine Plus Radiotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2011.34.8904
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.