Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 181

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Oral Tetra-Arsenic Tetra-Sulfide Formula Versus Intravenous Arsenic Trioxide As First-Line Treatment of Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Zhu, Hong-Hu, Wu, De-Pei, Jin, Jie, Li, Jian-Yong, Ma, Jun, Wang, Jian-Xiang, Jiang, Hao, Chen, Sai-Juan, Huang, Xiao-Jun·2013·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: This randomized, multicenter, phase III noninferiority trial was designed to test the efficacy and safety of an oral tetra-arsenic tetra-sulfide (As 4 S 4 ) –containing formula named the Realgar-Indigo naturalis formula (RIF) compared with intravenous arsenic trioxide (ATO) as both induction and maintenance therapies for newly diagnosed acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). Patients and Methods: In all, 242 patients with APL were randomly assigned (1:1) to oral RIF (60 mg/kg) or ATO (0.16 mg/kg) combined with all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA; 25 mg/m 2 ) during induction therapy. After achieving complete remission (CR), all patients received three courses of consolidation chemotherapy and maintenance treatment with sequential ATRA followed by either RIF or ATO for 2 years. The primary end point was the rate of disease-free survival (DFS) at 2 years, which was assessed for noninferiority with a 10% noninferiority margin. Results: The median follow-up time was 39 months. DFS at 2 years was 98.1% (106 of 108) in the RIF group and 95.5% (107 of 112) in the ATO group. The DFS difference was 2.6% (95% CI, −3.0% to 8.0%). The lower limit of the 95% CI of DFS difference was greater than the −10% noninferiority margin, confirming noninferiority (P < .001). No significant differences were noted between the RIF and ATO groups with regard to the CR rate (99.1% v 97.2%; P = .62) or the overall survival at 3 years (99.1% v 96.6%; P = .18). The rates of adverse events were similar in the two groups. Conclusion: Oral RIF plus ATRA is not inferior to intravenous ATO plus ATRA as first-line treatment of APL and may be considered as a routine treatment option for appropriate patients.

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.2013.48.8312

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 181

Metadata

Authors
Zhu, H.-H., Wu, D.-P., Jin, J., Li, J.-Y., Ma, J., Wang, J.-X., Jiang, H., Chen, S.-J., & Huang, X.-J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2013-11-20
Volume
31
Issue
33
Pages
4215-4221
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2169503443
Cited by
181
References
0
FWCI
7.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Oral Tetra-Arsenic Tetra-Sulfide Formula Versus Intravenous Arsenic Trioxide As First-Line Treatment of Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2013.48.8312
The paper
Zhu, H.-H., Wu, D.-P., Jin, J., Li, J.-Y., Ma, J., Wang, J.-X., Jiang, H., Chen, S.-J., & Huang, X.-J. (2013). Oral Tetra-Arsenic Tetra-Sulfide Formula Versus Intravenous Arsenic Trioxide As First-Line Treatment of Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.48.8312

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.