The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Estrogen-Receptor Status and Outcomes of Modern Chemotherapy for Patients With Node-Positive Breast Cancer
Abstract
CONTEXT: Breast cancer estrogen-receptor (ER) status is useful in predicting benefit from endocrine therapy. It may also help predict which patients benefit from advances in adjuvant chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To compare differences in benefits from adjuvant chemotherapy achieved by patients with ER-negative vs ER-positive tumors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Trial data from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B and US Breast Cancer Intergroup analyzed; patient outcomes by ER status compared using hazards over time and multivariate models. Randomized trials comparing (1): 3 regimens of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (January 1985 to April 1991); (2) 3 doses of doxorubicin concurrent with cyclophosphamide, with or without subsequent paclitaxel (May 1994 to April 1997); (3) sequential doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide with concurrent doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel, and also 3-week vs 2-week cycles (September 1997 to March 1999). A total of 6644 node-positive breast cancer patients received adjuvant treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disease-free and overall survival. RESULTS: For ER-negative tumors, chemotherapy improvements reduced the relative risk of recurrence by 21%, 25%, and 23% in the 3 studies, respectively, and 55% comparing the lowest dose in the first study with biweekly cycles in the third study. Corresponding relative risk reductions for ER-positive tumors treated with tamoxifen were 9%, 12%, and 8% in the 3 studies, and 26% overall. The overall mortality rate reductions associated with chemotherapy improvements were 55% and 23% among ER-negative and ER-positive patients, respectively. All individual ER-negative comparisons and no ER-positive comparisons were statistically significant. Absolute benefits due to chemotherapy were greater for patients with ER-negative compared with ER-positive tumors: 22.8% more ER-negative patients survived to 5 years disease-free if receiving chemotherapy vs 7.0% for ER-positive patients; corresponding improvements for overall survival were 16.7% vs 4.0%. CONCLUSION: Among patients with node-positive tumors, ER-negative breast cancer, biweekly doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide plus paclitaxel lowers the rate of recurrence and death by more than 50% in comparison with low-dose cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil as used in the first study.
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
Trastuzumab after Adjuvant Chemotherapy in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer
Piccart-Gebhart, M. J., Procter, M., Leyland-Jones, B., Goldhirsch, A., Untch, M., Smith, I., Gianni, L., Baselga, J., Bell, R., Jackisch, C., et al. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa052306 · Cited by 5,084
Coombes, R. C., Hall, E., Gibson, L. J., Paridaens, R., Jassem, J., Delozier, T., Jones, S. E., Alvarez, I., Bertelli, G., Ortmann, O., et al. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa040331 · Cited by 1,759
Cited by
Triple-negative breast cancer: challenges and opportunities of a heterogeneous disease
Bianchini, G., Balko, J. M., Mayer, I. A., Sanders, M. E., & Gianni, L. (2016) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.66 · Cited by 3,079
Liedtke, C., Mazouni, C., Hess, K. R., André, F., Tordai, A., Mejia, J. A., Symmans, W. F., Gonzalez-Angulo, A. M., Hennessy, B., Green, M., et al. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2007.14.4147 · Cited by 2,892
Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up
Cardoso, F., Kyriakides, S., Ohno, S., Penault-Llorca, F., Poortmans, P., Rubio, I. T., Zackrisson, S., & Senkus, E. (2019) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz173 · Cited by 2,214
Rastogi, P., Anderson, S. J., Bear, H. D., Geyer, C. E., Kahlenberg, M. S., Robidoux, A., Margolese, R. G., Hoehn, J. L., Vogel, V. G., Dakhil, S. R., et al. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2007.15.0235 · Cited by 1,789
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Colon Cancer, Version 2.2018
Benson, A. B., Venook, A. P., Al-Hawary, M. M., Cederquist, L., Chen, Y.-J., Ciombor, K. K., Cohen, S., Cooper, H. S., Deming, D., Engstrom, P. F., et al. (2018) · Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network · doi:10.6004/jnccn.2018.0021 · Cited by 806
Metadata
- Authors
- Berry, D. A., Cirrincione, C., Henderson, I. C., Citron, M. L., Budman, D. R., Goldstein, L. J., Martino, S., Perez, E. A., Muss, H. B., Norton, L., Hudis, C., & Winer, E. P.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2006-04-12
- Volume
- 295
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 1658
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2167926320
- Cited by
- 731
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 24.60
- 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: Estrogen-Receptor Status and Outcomes of Modern Chemotherapy for Patients With Node-Positive Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.295.14.1658
- The paper
- Berry, D. A., Cirrincione, C., Henderson, I. C., Citron, M. L., Budman, D. R., Goldstein, L. J., Martino, S., Perez, E. A., Muss, H. B., Norton, L., Hudis, C., & Winer, E. P. (2006). Estrogen-Receptor Status and Outcomes of Modern Chemotherapy for Patients With Node-Positive Breast Cancer. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.14.1658
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.