Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 532

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical and Genomic Risk to Guide the Use of Adjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer

Open access
Sparano, Joseph A., Gray, Robert J., Ravdin, Peter M., Makower, Della F., Pritchard, Kathleen I., Albain, Kathy S., Hayes, Daniel F., Geyer, Charles E., Dees, Elizabeth C., Goetz, Matthew P., Olson, John A., Lively, Tracy, Badve, Sunil S., Saphner, Thomas J., Wagner, Lynne I., Whelan, Timothy J., Ellis, Matthew J., Paik, Soonmyung, Wood, William C., Keane, Maccon M., Gomez Moreno, Henry L., Reddy, Pavan S., Goggins, Timothy F., Mayer, Ingrid A., Brufsky, Adam M., Toppmeyer, Deborah L., Kaklamani, Virginia G., Berenberg, Jeffrey L., Abrams, Jeffrey, Sledge, George W.·2019·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer may be guided by clinicopathological factors and a score based on a 21-gene assay to determine the risk of recurrence. Whether the level of clinical risk of breast cancer recurrence adds prognostic information to the recurrence score is not known. METHODS: We performed a prospective trial involving 9427 women with hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, axillary node-negative breast cancer, in whom an assay of 21 genes had been performed, and we classified the clinical risk of recurrence of breast cancer as low or high on the basis of the tumor size and histologic grade. The effect of clinical risk was evaluated by calculating hazard ratios for distant recurrence with the use of Cox proportional-hazards models. The initial endocrine therapy was tamoxifen alone in the majority of the premenopausal women who were 50 years of age or younger. RESULTS: The level of clinical risk was prognostic of distant recurrence in women with an intermediate 21-gene recurrence score of 11 to 25 (on a scale of 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating a worse prognosis or a greater potential benefit from chemotherapy) who were randomly assigned to endocrine therapy (hazard ratio for the comparison of high vs. low clinical risk, 2.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.93 to 3.87) or to chemotherapy plus endocrine (chemoendocrine) therapy (hazard ratio, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.66 to 3.48) and in women with a high recurrence score (a score of 26 to 100), all of whom were assigned to chemoendocrine therapy (hazard ratio, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.94 to 5.19). Among women who were 50 years of age or younger who had received endocrine therapy alone, the estimated (±SE) rate of distant recurrence at 9 years was less than 5% (≤1.8±0.9%) with a low recurrence score (a score of 0 to 10), irrespective of clinical risk, and 4.7±1.0% with an intermediate recurrence score and low clinical risk. In this age group, the estimated distant recurrence at 9 years exceeded 10% among women with a high clinical risk and an intermediate recurrence score who received endocrine therapy alone (12.3±2.4%) and among those with a high recurrence score who received chemoendocrine therapy (15.2±3.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical-risk stratification provided prognostic information that, when added to the 21-gene recurrence score, could be used to identify premenopausal women who could benefit from more effective therapy. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00310180.).

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/nejmoa1904819

Cites

39 of 39 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

Show all 39 references

Cited by

See all 532

Metadata

Authors
Sparano, J. A., Gray, R. J., Ravdin, P. M., Makower, D. F., Pritchard, K. I., Albain, K. S., Hayes, D. F., Geyer, C. E., Dees, E. C., Goetz, M. P., Olson, J. A., Lively, T., Badve, S. S., Saphner, T. J., Wagner, L. I., Whelan, T. J., Ellis, M. J., Paik, S., Wood, W. C., Keane, M. M., Gomez Moreno, H. L., Reddy, P. S., Goggins, T. F., Mayer, I. A., Brufsky, A. M., Toppmeyer, D. L., Kaklamani, V. G., Berenberg, J. L., Abrams, J., & Sledge, G. W.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2019-06-20
Volume
380
Issue
25
Pages
2395-2405
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2948923376
Cited by
532
References
39
FWCI
20.46
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: Clinical and Genomic Risk to Guide the Use of Adjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1904819
The paper
Sparano, J. A., Gray, R. J., Ravdin, P. M., Makower, D. F., Pritchard, K. I., Albain, K. S., Hayes, D. F., Geyer, C. E., Dees, E. C., Goetz, M. P., Olson, J. A., Lively, T., Badve, S. S., Saphner, T. J., Wagner, L. I., Whelan, T. J., Ellis, M. J., Paik, S., Wood, W. C., . . . Sledge, G. W. (2019). Clinical and Genomic Risk to Guide the Use of Adjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1904819

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.