Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 521

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tamoxifen and Chemotherapy for Lymph Node-Negative, Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer

Fisher, B., Dignam, J., Emir, B., Bryant, J., DeCillis, A., Wolmark, N., Wickerham, D. L., Dimitrov, N. V., Abramson, N., Atkins, J. N., Shibata, H., Deschenes, L., Margolese, R. G.·1997·JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The B-20 study of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) was conducted to determine whether chemotherapy plus tamoxifen would be of greater benefit than tamoxifen alone in the treatment of patients with axillary lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. METHODS: Eligible patients (n = 2306) were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups following surgery. A total of 771 patients with follow-up data received tamoxifen alone; 767 received methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen (MFT); and 768 received cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen (CMFT). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and survival. Reported P values are two-sided. RESULTS: Through 5 years of follow-up, chemotherapy plus tamoxifen resulted in significantly better disease-free survival than tamoxifen alone (90% for MFT versus 85% for tamoxifen [P = .01]; 89% for CMFT versus 85% for tamoxifen [P = .001]). A similar benefit was observed in both distant disease-free survival (92% for MFT versus 87% for tamoxifen [P = .008]; 91% for CMFT versus 87% for tamoxifen [P = .006]) and survival (97% for MFT versus 94% for tamoxifen [P = .05]; 96% for CMFT versus 94% for tamoxifen [P = .03]). Compared with tamoxifen alone, MFT and CMFT reduced the risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after lumpectomy and the risk of recurrence at other local, regional, and distant sites. Risk of treatment failure was reduced after both types of chemotherapy, regardless of tumor size, tumor estrogen or progesterone receptor level, or patient age; however, the reduction was greatest in patients aged 49 years or less. No subgroup of patients evaluated in this study failed to benefit from chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this and other NSABP studies indicate that patients with breast cancer who meet NSABP protocol criteria, regardless of age, lymph node status, tumor size, or estrogen receptor status, are candidates for chemotherapy.

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/jnci/89.22.1673

Cites

14 of 14 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 14 references

Cited by

See all 521

Metadata

Authors
Fisher, B., Dignam, J., Emir, B., Bryant, J., DeCillis, A., Wolmark, N., Wickerham, D. L., Dimitrov, N. V., Abramson, N., Atkins, J. N., Shibata, H., Deschenes, L., & Margolese, R. G.
Venue
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
1997-11-19
Volume
89
Issue
22
Pages
1673-1682
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2148078311
Cited by
521
References
14
FWCI
11.36
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: Tamoxifen and Chemotherapy for Lymph Node-Negative, Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/89.22.1673
The paper
Fisher, B., Dignam, J., Emir, B., Bryant, J., DeCillis, A., Wolmark, N., Wickerham, D. L., Dimitrov, N. V., Abramson, N., Atkins, J. N., Shibata, H., Deschenes, L., & Margolese, R. G. (1997). Tamoxifen and Chemotherapy for Lymph Node-Negative, Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/89.22.1673

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.