Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 227

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A prospective evaluation of a breast cancer prognosis signature in the observational RASTER study

Open access
Drukker, C.A., Bueno‐de‐Mesquita, J.M., Retèl, V.P., van Harten, W.H., van Tinteren, H., Wesseling, J., Roumen, R.M.H., Knauer, M., van 't Veer, L.J., Sonke, G.S., Rutgers, E.J.T., van de Vijver, M.J., Linn, S.C.·2013·International Journal of Cancer

Abstract

The 70‐gene signature (MammaPrint™) has been developed on retrospective series of breast cancer patients to predict the risk of breast cancer distant metastases. The microarRAy‐prognoSTics‐in‐breast‐cancER (RASTER) study was the first study designed to prospectively evaluate the performance of the 70‐gene signature, which result was available for 427 patients (cT1–3N0M0). Adjuvant systemic treatment decisions were based on the Dutch CBO 2004 guidelines, the 70‐gene signature and doctors' and patients' preferences. Five‐year distant‐recurrence‐free‐interval (DRFI) probabilities were compared between subgroups based on the 70‐gene signature and Adjuvant! Online (AOL) (10‐year survival probability <90% was defined as high‐risk). Median follow‐up was 61.6 months. Fifteen percent (33/219) of the 70‐gene signature low‐risk patients received adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) versus 81% (169/208) of the 70‐gene signature high‐risk patients. The 5‐year DRFI probabilities for 70‐gene signature low‐risk (n = 219) and high‐risk (n = 208) patients were 97.0% and 91.7%. The 5‐year DRFI probabilities for AOL low‐risk (n = 132) and high‐risk (n = 295) patients were 96.7% and 93.4%. For 70‐gene signature low‐risk–AOL high‐risk patients (n = 124), of whom 76% (n = 94) had not received ACT, 5‐year DRFI was 98.4%. In the AOL high‐risk group, 32% (94/295) less patients would be eligible to receive ACT if the 70‐gene signature was used. In this prospective community‐based observational study, the 5‐year DRFI probabilities confirmed the additional prognostic value of the 70‐gene signature to clinicopathological risk estimations such as AOL. Omission of adjuvant chemotherapy as judged appropriate by doctors and patients and instigated by a low‐risk 70‐gene signature result, appeared not to compromise outcome.

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 · 10.1002/ijc.28082

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 227

Metadata

Authors
Drukker, C. A., Bueno‐de‐Mesquita, J. M., Retèl, V. P., van Harten, W. H., van Tinteren, H., Wesseling, J., Roumen, R. M. H., Knauer, M., van 't Veer, L. J., Sonke, G. S., Rutgers, E. J. T., van de Vijver, M. J., & Linn, S. C.
Venue
International Journal of Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-03-04
Volume
133
Issue
4
Pages
929-936
ISSN
  • 0020-7136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0215
OpenAlex
W2151640153
Cited by
227
References
0
FWCI
10.35
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: A prospective evaluation of a breast cancer prognosis signature in the observational RASTER study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ijc.28082
The paper
Drukker, C. A., Bueno‐de‐Mesquita, J. M., Retèl, V. P., van Harten, W. H., van Tinteren, H., Wesseling, J., Roumen, R. M. H., Knauer, M., van 't Veer, L. J., Sonke, G. S., Rutgers, E. J. T., van de Vijver, M. J., & Linn, S. C. (2013). A prospective evaluation of a breast cancer prognosis signature in the observational RASTER study. International Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.28082

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.