Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 419

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improving the Evidence Base for Treating Older Adults With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement

Hurria, Arti, Levit, Laura A., Dale, William, Mohile, Supriya G., Muss, Hyman B., Fehrenbacher, Louis, Magnuson, Allison, Lichtman, Stuart M., Bruinooge, Suanna S., Soto-Perez-de-Celis, Enrique, Tew, William P., Postow, Michael A., Cohen, Harvey J.·2015·Journal of Clinical Oncology
DOI 10.1200/jco.2015.63.0319
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) convened a subcommittee to develop recommendations on improving the evidence base for treating older adults with cancer in response to a critical need identified by the Institute of Medicine. Older adults experience the majority of cancer diagnoses and deaths and make up the majority of cancer survivors. Older adults are also the fastest growing segment of the US population. However, the evidence base for treating this population is sparse, because older adults are underrepresented in clinical trials, and trials designed specifically for older adults are rare. The result is that clinicians have less evidence on how to treat older adults, who represent the majority of patients with cancer. Clinicians and patients are forced to extrapolate from trials conducted in younger, healthier populations when developing treatment plans. This has created a dearth of knowledge regarding the risk of toxicity in the average older patient and about key end points of importance to older adults. ASCO makes five recommendations to improve evidence generation in this population: (1) Use clinical trials to improve the evidence base for treating older adults with cancer, (2) leverage research designs and infrastructure for generating evidence on older adults with cancer, (3) increase US Food and Drug Administration authority to incentivize and require research involving older adults with cancer, (4) increase clinicians' recruitment of older adults with cancer to clinical trials, and (5) use journal policies to improve researchers' reporting on the age distribution and health risk profiles of research participants.

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.2015.63.0319

Cites

69 of 69 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 69 references

Cited by

See all 419

Metadata

Authors
Hurria, A., Levit, L. A., Dale, W., Mohile, S. G., Muss, H. B., Fehrenbacher, L., Magnuson, A., Lichtman, S. M., Bruinooge, S. S., Soto-Perez-de-Celis, E., Tew, W. P., Postow, M. A., & Cohen, H. J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Publisher
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Published
2015-11-10
Volume
33
Issue
32
Pages
3826-3833
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
DOI
10.1200/jco.2015.63.0319
OpenAlex
W2149386818
Cited by
419
References
69
FWCI
16.87
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: Improving the Evidence Base for Treating Older Adults With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2015.63.0319
The paper
Hurria, A., Levit, L. A., Dale, W., Mohile, S. G., Muss, H. B., Fehrenbacher, L., Magnuson, A., Lichtman, S. M., Bruinooge, S. S., Soto-Perez-de-Celis, E., Tew, W. P., Postow, M. A., & Cohen, H. J. (2015). Improving the Evidence Base for Treating Older Adults With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2015.63.0319

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.