Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 553

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Goserelin for Ovarian Protection during Breast-Cancer Adjuvant Chemotherapy

Open access
Moore, Halle C.F., Unger, Joseph M., Phillips, Kelly-Anne, Boyle, Frances, Hitre, Erika, Porter, David, Francis, Prudence A., Goldstein, Lori J., Gomez, Henry L., Vallejos, Carlos S., Partridge, Ann H., Dakhil, Shaker R., Garcia, Agustin A., Gralow, Julie, Lombard, Janine M., Forbes, John F., Martino, Silvana, Barlow, William E., Fabian, Carol J., Minasian, Lori, Meyskens, Frank L., Gelber, Richard D., Hortobagyi, Gabriel N., Albain, Kathy S.·2015·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ovarian failure is a common toxic effect of chemotherapy. Studies of the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to protect ovarian function have shown mixed results and lack data on pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: We randomly assigned 257 premenopausal women with operable hormone-receptor-negative breast cancer to receive standard chemotherapy with the GnRH agonist goserelin (goserelin group) or standard chemotherapy without goserelin (chemotherapy-alone group). The primary study end point was the rate of ovarian failure at 2 years, with ovarian failure defined as the absence of menses in the preceding 6 months and levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) in the postmenopausal range. Rates were compared with the use of conditional logistic regression. Secondary end points included pregnancy outcomes and disease-free and overall survival. RESULTS: At baseline, 218 patients were eligible and could be evaluated. Among 135 with complete primary end-point data, the ovarian failure rate was 8% in the goserelin group and 22% in the chemotherapy-alone group (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09 to 0.97; two-sided P=0.04). Owing to missing primary end-point data, sensitivity analyses were performed, and the results were consistent with the main findings. Missing data did not differ according to treatment group or according to the stratification factors of age and planned chemotherapy regimen. Among the 218 patients who could be evaluated, pregnancy occurred in more women in the goserelin group than in the chemotherapy-alone group (21% vs. 11%, P=0.03); women in the goserelin group also had improved disease-free survival (P=0.04) and overall survival (P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although missing data weaken interpretation of the findings, administration of goserelin with chemotherapy appeared to protect against ovarian failure, reducing the risk of early menopause and improving prospects for fertility. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; POEMS/S0230 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00068601.).

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa1413204

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

1 retracted

Cited by

See all 553

Metadata

Authors
Moore, H. C. F., Unger, J. M., Phillips, K.-A., Boyle, F., Hitre, E., Porter, D., Francis, P. A., Goldstein, L. J., Gomez, H. L., Vallejos, C. S., Partridge, A. H., Dakhil, S. R., Garcia, A. A., Gralow, J., Lombard, J. M., Forbes, J. F., Martino, S., Barlow, W. E., Fabian, C. J., Minasian, L., Meyskens, F. L., Gelber, R. D., Hortobagyi, G. N., & Albain, K. S.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2015-03-05
Volume
372
Issue
10
Pages
923-932
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2063500255
Cited by
553
References
1
FWCI
82.49
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

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.