Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 264

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

R-CVP Versus R-CHOP Versus R-FM for the Initial Treatment of Patients With Advanced-Stage Follicular Lymphoma: Results of the FOLL05 Trial Conducted by the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi

Open access
Federico, Massimo, Luminari, Stefano, Dondi, Alessandra, Tucci, Alessandra, Vitolo, Umberto, Rigacci, Luigi, Di Raimondo, Francesco, Carella, Angelo Michele, Pulsoni, Alessandro, Merli, Francesco, Arcaini, Luca, Angrilli, Francesco, Stelitano, Caterina, Gaidano, Gianluca, Dell'Olio, Matteo, Marcheselli, Luigi, Franco, Vito, Galimberti, Sara, Sacchi, Stefano, Brugiatelli, Maura·2013·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Although rituximab (R) is commonly used for patients with advanced follicular lymphoma (FL) requiring treatment, the optimal associated chemotherapy regimen has yet to be clarified. Patients and Methods: We conducted an open-label, multicenter, randomized trial among adult patients with previously untreated stages II to IV FL to compare efficacy of eight doses of R associated with eight cycles of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP) or six cycles of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) or six cycles of fludarabine and mitoxantrone (FM). The principal end point of the study was time to treatment failure (TTF). Results: There were 534 patients enrolled onto the study. Overall response rates were 88%, 93%, and 91% for R-CVP, R-CHOP, and R-FM, respectively (P=.247). After a median follow-up of 34 months, 3-year TTFs were 46%, 62%, and 59% for the respective treatment groups (R-CHOP v R-CVP, P=.003; R-FM v R-CVP, P=.006; R-FM v R-CHOP, P=.763). Three-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 52%, 68%, and 63% (overall P=.011), respectively, and 3-year overall survival was 95% for the whole series. R-FM resulted in higher rates of grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (64%) compared with R-CVP (28%) and R-CHOP (50%; P< .001). Overall, 23 second malignancies were registered during follow-up: four in R-CVP, five in R-CHOP, and 14 in R-FM. Conclusion: In this study, R-CHOP and R-FM were superior to R-CVP in terms of 3-year TTF and PFS. In addition, R-CHOP had a better risk-benefit ratio compared with R-FM.

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.2012.45.0866

Cites

29 of 29 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 29 references

Cited by

See all 264

Metadata

Authors
Federico, M., Luminari, S., Dondi, A., Tucci, A., Vitolo, U., Rigacci, L., Di Raimondo, F., Carella, A. M., Pulsoni, A., Merli, F., Arcaini, L., Angrilli, F., Stelitano, C., Gaidano, G., Dell'Olio, M., Marcheselli, L., Franco, V., Galimberti, S., Sacchi, S., & Brugiatelli, M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2013-04-20
Volume
31
Issue
12
Pages
1506-1513
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2109205360
Cited by
264
References
29
FWCI
23.35
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: R-CVP Versus R-CHOP Versus R-FM for the Initial Treatment of Patients With Advanced-Stage Follicular Lymphoma: Results of the FOLL05 Trial Conducted by the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2012.45.0866
The paper
Federico, M., Luminari, S., Dondi, A., Tucci, A., Vitolo, U., Rigacci, L., Di Raimondo, F., Carella, A. M., Pulsoni, A., Merli, F., Arcaini, L., Angrilli, F., Stelitano, C., Gaidano, G., Dell'Olio, M., Marcheselli, L., Franco, V., Galimberti, S., Sacchi, S., & Brugiatelli, M. (2013). R-CVP Versus R-CHOP Versus R-FM for the Initial Treatment of Patients With Advanced-Stage Follicular Lymphoma: Results of the FOLL05 Trial Conducted by the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2012.45.0866

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.