The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Randomized Clinical Trial of Diethylstilbestrol versus Tamoxifen in Postmenopausal Women with Advanced Breast Cancer
Abstract
Before the introduction of tamoxifen, diethylstilbestrol (DES) was widely considered to be the hormonal treatment of choice in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. We performed a randomized clinical trial of these two agents to determine their relative efficacy and toxicity. The trial involved 143 evaluable patients, of whom 99 had received no prior systemic therapy and 44 had received previous chemotherapy. The regression rates (complete plus partial) were higher in patients receiving DES (41 per cent) than in those receiving tamoxifen (33 per cent), but not significantly so (P = 0.37). In patients who had had no prior systemic therapy, the rates were 44 per cent and 38 per cent, respectively (P = 0.55), and in those who had had previous chemotherapy, 32 per cent vs. 23 per cent (P = 0.50). Analysis of the time until treatment failure for the two treatment groups showed no significant difference (medians: DES, 142 days; tamoxifen, 171 days). Toxicity was greater in patients receiving DES; nine of 74 patients (12 per cent) discontinued therapy solely because of adverse reactions. Since there was no statistically significant difference in efficacy and since tamoxifen was less toxic, tamoxifen appears to be the preferred agent.
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
Cited by
Nabholtz, J. M., Buzdar, A., Pollak, M., Harwin, W., Burton, G., Mangalik, A., Steinberg, M., Webster, A., & von Euler, M. (2000) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2000.18.22.3758 · Cited by 992
Aromatase Inhibitors in Breast Cancer
Smith, I. E., & Dowsett, M. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra023246 · Cited by 905
Patel, H. K., & Bihani, T. (2018) · Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2017.12.012 · Cited by 499
Mucocutaneous reactions to chemotherapy
Susser, W. S., Whitaker-Worth, D. L., & Grant-Kels, J. M. (1999) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(99)70488-3 · Cited by 294
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
Metadata
- Authors
- 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., & Frytak, S.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1981-01
- Volume
- 304
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 16-21
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2315368724
- Cited by
- 336
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.50
- 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: Randomized Clinical Trial of Diethylstilbestrol versus Tamoxifen in Postmenopausal Women with Advanced Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm198101013040104
- The paper
- 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., & Frytak, S. (1981). Randomized Clinical Trial of Diethylstilbestrol versus Tamoxifen in Postmenopausal Women with Advanced Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198101013040104
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.