Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 281

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

High independent prognostic and predictive value of circulating tumor cells compared with serum tumor markers in a large prospective trial in first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer patients

Open access
Pierga, J.-Y., Hajage, D., Bachelot, T., Delaloge, S., Brain, E., Campone, M., Diéras, V., Rolland, E., Mignot, L., Mathiot, C., Bidard, F.-C.·2012·Annals of Oncology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are a prognostic marker in metastatic breast cancer, but comparisons with serum tumor markers (CA 15-3, carcinoembryonic antigen and lactate dehydrogenase) variations are needed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CTCs were counted with CellSearch® at baseline, before cycle 2 (C2) and cycle 3 or 4 (C3/4) in 267 metastatic breast cancer patients on first-line chemotherapy with/without targeted therapy. RESULTS: Baseline CTC detection rate was 65% with ≥1 CTC/7.5 ml threshold and 44% with ≥5 CTC/7.5 ml and was independent of subtypes (luminal, triple negative, human epithelial growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)+). CTCs were associated with tumor markers, bone/liver involvement, tumor burden and performance status. CTC detection ≥1 CTC/7.5 ml was a strong prognostic factor for progression-free survival (PFS), P < 0.0001. Threshold of CTC ≥5 was statistically significant for PFS and overall survival (OS), P = 0.03 on multivariate analysis. Among patients with ≥5 CTC/7.5 ml at baseline, 50% had <5 CTC/7.5 ml at C2. Changes were correlated with both PFS and OS (P < 0.0001). All patients receiving anti-HER2 therapy had <5 CTC/7.5 ml after three cycles of treatment. CONCLUSION: This is the largest prospective series validating the prognostic value of CTC independently from serum tumor marker. Elevated CTCs before C2 are an early predictive marker of poor PFS and OS, which could be used to monitor treatment benefit. CTC decrease under treatment seems stronger with targeted therapy.

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 · 10.1093/annonc/mdr263

Cites

2 of 2 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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 281

Metadata

Authors
Pierga, J.-Y., Hajage, D., Bachelot, T., Delaloge, S., Brain, E., Campone, M., Diéras, V., Rolland, E., Mignot, L., Mathiot, C., & Bidard, F.-C.
Venue
Annals of Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-03
Volume
23
Issue
3
Pages
618-624
ISSN
0923-7534 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2125844297
Cited by
281
References
2
FWCI
9.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: High independent prognostic and predictive value of circulating tumor cells compared with serum tumor markers in a large prospective trial in first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/annonc/mdr263
The paper
Pierga, J.-Y., Hajage, D., Bachelot, T., Delaloge, S., Brain, E., Campone, M., Diéras, V., Rolland, E., Mignot, L., Mathiot, C., & Bidard, F.-C. (2012). High independent prognostic and predictive value of circulating tumor cells compared with serum tumor markers in a large prospective trial in first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer patients. Annals of Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdr263

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.