Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,200

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Systemic Treatment in Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Mauri, D., Pavlidis, N., Ioannidis, J. P. A.·2005·JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Interest in the use of preoperative systemic treatment in the management of breast cancer has increased because such neoadjuvant therapy appears to reduce the extent of local surgery required. We compared the clinical end points of patients with breast cancer treated preoperatively with systemic therapy (neoadjuvant therapy) and of those treated postoperatively with the same regimen (adjuvant therapy) in a meta-analysis of randomized trials. METHODS: We evaluated nine randomized studies, including a total of 3946 patients with breast cancer, that compared neoadjuvant therapy with adjuvant therapy regardless of what additional surgery and/or radiation treatment was used. Fixed and random effects methods were used to combine data. Primary outcomes were death, disease progression, distant disease recurrence, and loco-regional disease recurrence. Secondary outcomes were local response and conservative local treatment. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: We found no statistically or clinically significant difference between neoadjuvant therapy and adjuvant therapy arms associated with death (summary risk ratio [RR] = 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.90 to 1.12), disease progression (summary RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.91 to 1.07), or distant disease recurrence (summary RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.83 to 1.06). However, neoadjuvant therapy was statistically significantly associated with an increased risk of loco-regional disease recurrences (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.43), compared with adjuvant therapy, especially in trials where more patients in the neoadjuvant, than the adjuvant, arm received radiation therapy without surgery (RR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.11 to 2.10). Across trials, we observed heterogeneity in the rates of complete clinical response (range = 7%-65%; P for heterogeneity of <.001), pathologic response (range = 4%-29%; P for heterogeneity of <.001), and adoption of conservative local treatment (range = 28%-89% in neoadjuvant arms, P for heterogeneity of <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant therapy was apparently equivalent to adjuvant therapy in terms of survival and overall disease progression. Neoadjuvant therapy, compared with adjuvant therapy, was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of loco-regional recurrence when radiotherapy without surgery was adopted.

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/dji021

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 1,200

Metadata

Authors
Mauri, D., Pavlidis, N., & Ioannidis, J. P. A.
Venue
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2005-02-01
Volume
97
Issue
3
Pages
188-194
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2171958606
Cited by
1,200
References
4
FWCI
1.51
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: Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Systemic Treatment in Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/dji021
The paper
Mauri, D., Pavlidis, N., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Systemic Treatment in Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji021

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.