The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Conventional-Dose Chemotherapy Compared with High-Dose Chemotherapy plus Autologous Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation for Metastatic Breast Cancer
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: We conducted a randomized trial in which we compared high-dose chemotherapy plus hematopoietic stem-cell rescue with a prolonged course of monthly conventional-dose chemotherapy in women with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Women 18 to 60 years of age who had metastatic breast cancer received four to six cycles of standard combination chemotherapy. Patients who had a complete or partial response to induction chemotherapy were then randomly assigned to receive either a single course of high doses of carboplatin, thiotepa, and cyclophosphamide plus transplantation of autologous hematopoietic stem cells or up to 24 cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in conventional doses. The primary end point was survival. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 37 months. Of 553 patients who enrolled in the study, 58 had a complete response to induction chemotherapy and 252 had a partial response. Of these, 110 patients were assigned to receive high-dose chemotherapy plus hematopoietic stem cells and 89 were assigned to receive conventional-dose chemotherapy. In an intention-to-treat analysis, we found no significant difference in survival overall at three years between the two treatment groups (32 percent in the transplantation group and 38 percent in the conventional-chemotherapy group). There was no significant difference between the two treatments in the median time to progression of the disease (9.6 months for high-dose chemotherapy plus hematopoietic stem cells and 9.0 months for conventional-dose chemotherapy). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with maintenance chemotherapy in conventional doses, high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem-cell transplantation soon after the induction of a complete or partial remission with conventional-dose chemotherapy does not improve survival in women with metastatic 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
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- Greenberg PA, 1996, J Clin Oncol, 14, 2197, 10.1200/JCO.1996.14.8.2197 · DOI · Paper page
- Peters WP, 1988, J Clin Oncol, 6, 1368, 10.1200/JCO.1988.6.9.1368 · DOI · Paper page
- Williams SF, 1989, J Clin Oncol, 7, 1824, 10.1200/JCO.1989.7.12.1824 · doi:10.1200/jco.1989.7.12.1824
- 10.1093/jnci/83.13.920 · doi:10.1093/jnci/83.13.920
- Antman K, 1992, J Clin Oncol, 10, 102, 10.1200/JCO.1992.10.1.102 · doi:10.1200/jco.1992.10.1.102
- Williams SF, 1992, J Clin Oncol, 10, 1743, 10.1200/JCO.1992.10.11.1743 · doi:10.1200/jco.1992.10.11.1743
- Antman KH, 1997, J Clin Oncol, 15, 1870, 10.1200/JCO.1997.15.5.1870 · DOI · Paper page
- Thomas ED, 1970, Blood, 36, 507, 10.1182/blood.V36.4.507.507 · doi:10.1182/blood.v36.4.507.507
- Eder JP, 1990, J Clin Oncol, 8, 1239, 10.1200/JCO.1990.8.7.1239 · doi:10.1200/jco.1990.8.7.1239
- 10.2307/2530245 · DOI · Paper page
- Jennison C, 1989, J R Stat Soc [B], 51, 305, 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1989.tb01433.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1056/NEJM199812033392301 · DOI · Paper page
- Rahman ZU, 1997, J Clin Oncol, 15, 3171, 10.1200/JCO.1997.15.10.3171 · doi:10.1200/jco.1997.15.10.3171
- Garcia-Carbonero R, 1997, J Clin Oncol, 15, 3178, 10.1200/JCO.1997.15.10.3178 · DOI
- Crump M, 1996, J Clin Oncol, 14, 66, 10.1200/JCO.1996.14.1.66 · doi:10.1200/jco.1996.14.1.66
- Lotz JP, 1999, Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol, 18, 43a
- Bezwoda WR, 1995, J Clin Oncol, 13, 2483, 10.1200/JCO.1995.13.10.2483 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Bergh, J., Wiklund, T., Erikstein, B., Lidbrink, E., Lindman, H., Malmström, P., Kellokumpu-Lehtinen, P., Bengtsson, N.-O., Söderlund, G., Anker, G., et al. (2000) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02841-5 · Cited by 339
Mesenchymal stem cell secretome and regenerative therapy after cancer
Zimmerlin, L., Park, T. S., Zambidis, E. T., Donnenberg, V. S., & Donnenberg, A. D. (2013) · Biochimie · doi:10.1016/j.biochi.2013.05.010 · Cited by 168
Regenerative therapy after cancer: what are the risks?
Donnenberg, V. S., Zimmerlin, L., Rubin, J. P., & Donnenberg, A. D. (2010) · Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews · doi:10.1089/ten.teb.2010.0352 · Cited by 95
Kishida, Y., Kawahara, M., Teramukai, S., Kubota, K., Komuta, K., Minato, K., Mio, T., Fujita, Y., Yonei, T., Nakano, K., et al. (2009) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605348 · Cited by 87
A general inefficacy interim monitoring rule for randomized clinical trials
Freidlin, B., Korn, E. L., & Gray, R. (2010) · Clinical Trials · doi:10.1177/1740774510369019 · Cited by 64
Metadata
- Authors
- Stadtmauer, E. A., O'Neill, A., Goldstein, L. J., Crilley, P. A., Mangan, K. F., Ingle, J. N., Brodsky, I., Martino, S., Lazarus, H. M., Erban, J. K., Sickles, C., Luger, S. M., Klumpp, T. R., Litzow, M. R., Topolsky, D. L., & Glick, J. H.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2000-04-13
- Volume
- 342
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 1069-1076
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W1973702706
- Cited by
- 460
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Conventional-Dose Chemotherapy Compared with High-Dose Chemotherapy plus Autologous Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation for Metastatic Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm200004133421501
- The paper
- Stadtmauer, E. A., O'Neill, A., Goldstein, L. J., Crilley, P. A., Mangan, K. F., Ingle, J. N., Brodsky, I., Martino, S., Lazarus, H. M., Erban, J. K., Sickles, C., Luger, S. M., Klumpp, T. R., Litzow, M. R., Topolsky, D. L., & Glick, J. H. (2000). Conventional-Dose Chemotherapy Compared with High-Dose Chemotherapy plus Autologous Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation for Metastatic Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm200004133421501
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.
