The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early breast cancer: patient-level meta-analysis of the randomised trials
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal ways of using aromatase inhibitors or tamoxifen as endocrine treatment for early breast cancer remains uncertain. METHODS: We undertook meta-analyses of individual data on 31,920 postmenopausal women with oestrogen-receptor-positive early breast cancer in the randomised trials of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 5 years of tamoxifen; of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 2-3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5; and of 2-3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5 versus 5 years of tamoxifen. Primary outcomes were any recurrence of breast cancer, breast cancer mortality, death without recurrence, and all-cause mortality. Intention-to-treat log-rank analyses, stratified by age, nodal status, and trial, yielded aromatase inhibitor versus tamoxifen first-event rate ratios (RRs). FINDINGS: In the comparison of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 5 years of tamoxifen, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors significantly during years 0-1 (RR 0·64, 95% CI 0·52-0·78) and 2-4 (RR 0·80, 0·68-0·93), and non-significantly thereafter. 10-year breast cancer mortality was lower with aromatase inhibitors than tamoxifen (12·1% vs 14·2%; RR 0·85, 0·75-0·96; 2p=0·009). In the comparison of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 2-3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors significantly during years 0-1 (RR 0·74, 0·62-0·89) but not while both groups received aromatase inhibitors during years 2-4, or thereafter; overall in these trials, there were fewer recurrences with 5 years of aromatase inhibitors than with tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitors (RR 0·90, 0·81-0·99; 2p=0·045), though the breast cancer mortality reduction was not significant (RR 0·89, 0·78-1·03; 2p=0·11). In the comparison of 2-3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5 versus 5 years of tamoxifen, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors significantly during years 2-4 (RR 0·56, 0·46-0·67) but not subsequently, and 10-year breast cancer mortality was lower with switching to aromatase inhibitors than with remaining on tamoxifen (8·7% vs 10·1%; 2p=0·015). Aggregating all three types of comparison, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors during periods when treatments differed (RR 0·70, 0·64-0·77), but not significantly thereafter (RR 0·93, 0·86-1·01; 2p=0·08). Breast cancer mortality was reduced both while treatments differed (RR 0·79, 0·67-0·92), and subsequently (RR 0·89, 0·81-0·99), and for all periods combined (RR 0·86, 0·80-0·94; 2p=0·0005). All-cause mortality was also reduced (RR 0·88, 0·82-0·94; 2p=0·0003). RRs differed little by age, body-mass index, stage, grade, progesterone receptor status, or HER2 status. There were fewer endometrial cancers with aromatase inhibitors than tamoxifen (10-year incidence 0·4% vs 1·2%; RR 0·33, 0·21-0·51) but more bone fractures (5-year risk 8·2% vs 5·5%; RR 1·42, 1·28-1·57); non-breast-cancer mortality was similar. INTERPRETATION: Aromatase inhibitors reduce recurrence rates by about 30% (proportionately) compared with tamoxifen while treatments differ, but not thereafter. 5 years of an aromatase inhibitor reduces 10-year breast cancer mortality rates by about 15% compared with 5 years of tamoxifen, hence by about 40% (proportionately) compared with no endocrine treatment. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council.
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
Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60993-8 · Cited by 3,075
Davies, C., Pan, H., Godwin, J., Gray, R., Arriagada, R., Raina, V., Abraham, M., Alencar, V. H. M., Badran, A., Bonfill, X., et al. (2013) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61963-1 · Cited by 2,044
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
Effects of Tamoxifen on Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Women with Breast Cancer
Love, R. R., Mazess, R. B., Barden, H. S., Epstein, S., Newcomb, P. A., Jordan, V. C., Carbone, P. P., & DeMets, D. L. (1992) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199203263261302 · Cited by 1,129
Goss, P. E., Ingle, J. N., Martino, S., Robert, N. J., Muss, H. B., Piccart, M. J., Castiglione, M., Tu, D., Shepherd, L. E., Pritchard, K. I., et al. (2005) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/dji250 · Cited by 1,118
Endocrine Therapy plus Zoledronic Acid in Premenopausal Breast Cancer
Gnant, M., Mlineritsch, B., Schippinger, W., Luschin-Ebengreuth, G., Pöstlberger, S., Menzel, C., Jakesz, R., Seifert, M., Hubalek, M., Bjelic-Radisic, V., et al. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0806285 · Cited by 1,025
The ATAC (Arimidex, T. A. O. I. C. T. G. (2003) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.11745 · Cited by 861
Meta-Analysis of Breast Cancer Outcomes in Adjuvant Trials of Aromatase Inhibitors Versus Tamoxifen
Dowsett, M., Cuzick, J., Ingle, J., Coates, A., Forbes, J., Bliss, J., Buyse, M., Baum, M., Buzdar, A., Colleoni, M., et al. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2009.23.1274 · Cited by 813
Burstein, H. J., Prestrud, A. A., Seidenfeld, J., Anderson, H., Buchholz, T. A., Davidson, N. E., Gelmon, K. E., Giordano, S. H., Hudis, C. A., Malin, J., et al. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2009.26.3756 · Cited by 796
Cited by
Breast Cancer Treatment: A Review
Waks, A. G., & Winer, E. P. (2019) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2018.19323 · Cited by 4,804
Harbeck, N., Penault-Llorca, F., Cortes, J., Gnant, M., Houssami, N., Poortmans, P., Ruddy, K., Tsang, J., & Cardoso, F. (2019) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-019-0111-2 · Cited by 3,024
Loibl, S., Poortmans, P., Morrow, M., Denkert, C., & Curigliano, G. (2021) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)32381-3 · Cited by 1,648
Curigliano, G., Burstein, H. J., Winer, E. P., Gnant, M., Dubsky, P., Loibl, S., Colleoni, M., Regan, M. M., Piccart-Gebhart, M., Senn, H.-J., et al. (2017) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx308 · Cited by 1,205
Progress in evidence-based medicine: a quarter century on
Djulbegovic, B., & Guyatt, G. H. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31592-6 · Cited by 1,022
Metadata
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-10
- Volume
- 386
- Issue
- 10001
- Pages
- 1341-1352
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2214665719
- Cited by
- 1,520
- References
- 26
- FWCI
- 10.99
- 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: Aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early breast cancer: patient-level meta-analysis of the randomised trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)61074-1
- The paper
- Aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early breast cancer: patient-level meta-analysis of the randomised trials. (2015). The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)61074-1
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.