Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 463

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Phase III Open-Label Randomized Study of Eribulin Mesylate Versus Capecitabine in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer Previously Treated With an Anthracycline and a Taxane

Open access
Kaufman, Peter A., Awada, Ahmad, Twelves, Chris, Yelle, Louise, Perez, Edith A., Velikova, Galina, Olivo, Martin S., He, Yi, Dutcus, Corina E., Cortes, Javier·2015·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: This phase III randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00337103) compared eribulin with capecitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients and Methods: Women with MBC who had received prior anthracycline- and taxane-based therapy were randomly assigned to receive eribulin or capecitabine as their first-, second-, or third-line chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic disease. Stratification factors were human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status and geographic region. Coprimary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Median OS times for eribulin (n = 554) and capecitabine (n = 548) were 15.9 and 14.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.00; P = .056). Median PFS times for eribulin and capecitabine were 4.1 and 4.2 months, respectively (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.25; P = .30). Objective response rates were 11.0% for eribulin and 11.5% for capecitabine. Global health status and overall quality-of-life scores over time were similar in the treatment arms. Both treatments had manageable safety profiles consistent with their known adverse effects; most adverse events were grade 1 or 2. Conclusion: In this phase III study, eribulin was not shown to be superior to capecitabine with regard to OS or PFS.

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.2013.52.4892

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 463

Metadata

Authors
Kaufman, P. A., Awada, A., Twelves, C., Yelle, L., Perez, E. A., Velikova, G., Olivo, M. S., He, Y., Dutcus, C. E., & Cortes, J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2015-02-20
Volume
33
Issue
6
Pages
594-601
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2137545466
Cited by
463
References
3
FWCI
21.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Phase III Open-Label Randomized Study of Eribulin Mesylate Versus Capecitabine in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer Previously Treated With an Anthracycline and a Taxane. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2013.52.4892
The paper
Kaufman, P. A., Awada, A., Twelves, C., Yelle, L., Perez, E. A., Velikova, G., Olivo, M. S., He, Y., Dutcus, C. E., & Cortes, J. (2015). Phase III Open-Label Randomized Study of Eribulin Mesylate Versus Capecitabine in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer Previously Treated With an Anthracycline and a Taxane. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.52.4892

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.