The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Improving the Quality of Life during Chemotherapy for Advanced Breast Cancer
Abstract
Since chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer is not curative, consideration of the quality of life is important in selecting a treatment regimen. We conducted a randomized trial comparing continuous chemotherapy, administered until disease progression was evident, with intermittent therapy, whereby treatment was stopped after three cycles and then repeated for three more cycles only when there was evidence of disease progression. Each approach was tested with doxorubicin combined with cyclophosphamide or with cyclophosphamide combined with methotrexate, fluorouracil, and prednisone. Intermittent therapy resulted in a significantly worse response (P = 0.02 by Mann-Whitney test), a significantly shorter time to disease progression (relative risk based on proportional-hazards model, 1.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.4 to 2.4), and a trend toward shorter survival (relative risk, 1.3; confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.6). The quality of life was expressed as linear-analogue self-assessment scores for physical well-being, mood, pain, and appetite and as a quality-of-life index. It improved significantly during the first three cycles, when all patients received treatment. Thereafter, intermittent therapy was associated with worse scores for physical well-being (by 23 percent of scale; 95 percent confidence interval, 11 to 35 percent), mood (25 percent; 13 to 37 percent), and appetite (12 percent; 0 to 24 percent) and for the quality-of-life index as indicated by the patient (14 percent; 5 to 23 percent) and the physician (16 percent; 7 to 26 percent). Changes in the quality of life were independent prognostic factors in proportional-hazards models of subsequent survival. We conclude that, as tested, continuous chemotherapy is better than intermittent chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.
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
(1992) · PubMed · Cited by 33,716
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
Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials.
Fitzpatrick, Davey, Buxton, & Jones (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2140 · Cited by 1,715
Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments
Wiebe, S., Guyatt, G., Weaver, B., Matijevic, S., & Sidwell, C. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00537-1 · Cited by 573
Eton, 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Coates, A., Gebski, V., Bishop, J. F., Jeal, P. N., Woods, R. L., Snyder, R., Tattersall, M. H. N., Byrne, M., Harvey, V., Gill, G., Simpson, J., Drummond, R., Browne, J., van Cooten, R., Forbes, J. F., & For the Australian–New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, C. O. S. O. A.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1987-12-10
- Volume
- 317
- Issue
- 24
- Pages
- 1490-1495
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W1987684534
- Cited by
- 537
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.50
- 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: Improving the Quality of Life during Chemotherapy for Advanced Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm198712103172402
- The paper
- Coates, A., Gebski, V., Bishop, J. F., Jeal, P. N., Woods, R. L., Snyder, R., Tattersall, M. H. N., Byrne, M., Harvey, V., Gill, G., Simpson, J., Drummond, R., Browne, J., van Cooten, R., Forbes, J. F., & For the Australian–New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, C. O. S. O. A. (1987). Improving the Quality of Life during Chemotherapy for Advanced Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198712103172402
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.