The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Lower-Dose vs High-Dose Oral Estradiol Therapy of Hormone Receptor–Positive, Aromatase Inhibitor–Resistant Advanced Breast Cancer: A Phase 2 Randomized Study
Open accessAbstract
CONTEXT: Estrogen deprivation therapy with aromatase inhibitors has been hypothesized to paradoxically sensitize hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer tumor cells to low-dose estradiol therapy. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether 6 mg of estradiol (daily) is a viable therapy for postmenopausal women with advanced aromatase inhibitor-resistant hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A phase 2 randomized trial of 6 mg vs 30 mg of oral estradiol used daily (April 2004-February 2008 [enrollment closed]). Eligible patients (66 randomized) had metastatic breast cancer treated with an aromatase inhibitor with progression-free survival (> or = 24 wk) or relapse (after > or = 2 y) of adjuvant aromatase inhibitor use. Patients at high risk of estradiol-related adverse events were excluded. Patients were examined after 1 and 2 weeks for clinical and laboratory toxicities and flare reactions and thereafter every 4 weeks. Tumor radiological assessment occurred every 12 weeks. At least 1 measurable lesion or 4 measurable lesions (bone-only disease) were evaluated for tumor response. INTERVENTION: Randomization to receive 1 oral 2-mg generic estradiol tablet 3 times daily or five 2-mg tablets 3 times daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end point: clinical benefit rate (response plus stable disease at 24 weeks). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: toxicity, progression-free survival, time to treatment failure, quality of life, and the predictive properties of the metabolic flare reaction detected by positron emission tomography/computed tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose F 18. RESULTS: The adverse event rate (> or = grade 3) in the 30-mg group (11/32 [34%]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 23%-47%) was higher than in the 6-mg group (4/34 [18%]; 95% CI, 5%-22%; P = .03). Clinical benefit rates were 9 of 32 (28%; 95% CI, 18%-41%) in the 30-mg group and 10 of 34 (29%; 95% CI, 19%-42%) in the 6-mg group. An estradiol-stimulated increase in fluorodeoxyglucose F 18 uptake (> or = 12% prospectively defined) was predictive of response (positive predictive value, 80%; 95% CI, 61%-92%). Seven patients with estradiol-sensitive disease were re-treated with aromatase inhibitors at estradiol progression, among which 2 had partial response and 1 had stable disease, suggesting resensitization to estrogen deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: In women with advanced breast cancer and acquired resistance to aromatase inhibitors, a daily dose of 6 mg of estradiol provided a similar clinical benefit rate as 30 mg, with fewer serious adverse events. The efficacy of treatment with the lower dose should be further examined in phase 3 clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00324259.
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
Brady, M. J., Cella, D. F., Mo, F., Bonomi, A. E., Tulsky, D. S., Lloyd, S. R., Deasy, S., Cobleigh, M., & Shiomoto, G. (1997) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1997.15.3.974 · Cited by 1,752 · cited 1×
“Median (range) follow-up time was 83 (37-215) weeks for the 6-mg group and 86 (6-212) weeks for the 30-mg group.”
Bone Imaging in Metastatic Breast Cancer
Hamaoka, T., Madewell, J. E., Podoloff, D. A., Hortobagyi, G. N., & Ueno, N. T. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2004.08.181 · Cited by 656
OEstrogenic Activity of Certain Synthetic Compounds
DODDS, E. C., GOLDBERG, L., LAWSON, W., & ROBINSON, R. (1938) · Nature · doi:10.1038/141247b0 · Cited by 514
Chia, S., Gradishar, W., Mauriac, L., Bines, J., Amant, F., Federico, M., Fein, L., Romieu, G., Buzdar, A., Robertson, J. F. R., et al. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2007.13.5822 · Cited by 513
Metabolic Flare: Indicator of Hormone Responsiveness in Advanced Breast Cancer
Mortimer, J. E., Dehdashti, F., Siegel, B. A., Trinkaus, K., Katzenellenbogen, J. A., & Welch, M. J. (2001) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2001.19.11.2797 · Cited by 410
Self-citationEton, D. T., Cella, D., Yost, K. J., Yount, S. E., Peterman, A. H., Neuberg, D. S., Sledge, G. W., & Wood, W. C. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.01.012 · Cited by 390
Ingle, J. N., Ahmann, D. L., Green, S. J., Edmonson, J. H., Bisel, H. F., Kvols, L. K., Nichols, W. C., Creagan, E. T., Hahn, R. G., Rubin, J., et al. (1981) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198101013040104 · Cited by 336
Influence of Synthetic Oestrogens on Advanced Malignant Disease
Haddow, A., Watkinson, J., Paterson, E., & KOLLER, P. C. (1944) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.2.4368.393 · Cited by 299
Song, R. X.-D., Mor, G., Naftolin, F., McPherson, R. A., Song, J., Zhang, Z., Yue, W., Wang, J., & Santen, R. J. (2001) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/93.22.1714 · Cited by 293
Cited by
Patient-Derived Xenograft Models: An Emerging Platform for Translational Cancer Research
Hidalgo, M., Amant, F., Biankin, A. V., Budinská, E., Byrne, A. T., Caldas, C., Clarke, R. B., de Jong, S., Jonkers, J., Mælandsmo, G. M., et al. (2014) · Cancer Discovery · doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-14-0001 · Cited by 1,742
Activating ESR1 mutations in hormone-resistant metastatic breast cancer
Robinson, D. R., Wu, Y.-M., Vats, P., Su, F., Lonigro, R. J., Cao, X., Kalyana-Sundaram, S., Wang, R., Ning, Y., Hodges, L., et al. (2013) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.2823 · Cited by 1,145
Hammond, M. E. H., Hayes, D. F., Dowsett, M., Allred, D. C., Hagerty, K. L., Badve, S., Fitzgibbons, P. L., Francis, G., Goldstein, N. S., Hayes, M., et al. (2010) · Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.5858/134.7.e48 · Cited by 1,042
Jeselsohn, R., Yelensky, R., Buchwalter, G., Frampton, G., Meric-Bernstam, F., Gonzalez-Angulo, A. M., Ferrer-Lozano, J., Perez-Fidalgo, J. A., Cristofanilli, M., Gómez, H., et al. (2014) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-13-2332 · Cited by 674
LaCroix, A. Z. (2011) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2011.382 · Cited by 538
Metadata
- Authors
- Ellis, M. J., Gao, F., Dehdashti, F., Jeffe, D. B., Marcom, P. K., Carey, L. A., Dickler, M. N., Silverman, P., Fleming, G. F., Kommareddy, A., Jamalabadi-Majidi, S., Crowder, R., & Siegel, B. A.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2009-08-19
- Volume
- 302
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 774
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2158038535
- Cited by
- 287
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 6.90
- 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: Lower-Dose vs High-Dose Oral Estradiol Therapy of Hormone Receptor–Positive, Aromatase Inhibitor–Resistant Advanced Breast Cancer: A Phase 2 Randomized Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2009.1204
- The paper
- Ellis, M. J., Gao, F., Dehdashti, F., Jeffe, D. B., Marcom, P. K., Carey, L. A., Dickler, M. N., Silverman, P., Fleming, G. F., Kommareddy, A., Jamalabadi-Majidi, S., Crowder, R., & Siegel, B. A. (2009). Lower-Dose vs High-Dose Oral Estradiol Therapy of Hormone Receptor–Positive, Aromatase Inhibitor–Resistant Advanced Breast Cancer: A Phase 2 Randomized Study. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1204
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.