Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 825

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

Dietary Fat Reduction and Breast Cancer Outcome: Interim Efficacy Results From the Women's Intervention Nutrition Study

Chlebowski, Rowan T., Blackburn, George L., Thomson, Cynthia A., Nixon, Daniel W., Shapiro, Alice, Hoy, M. Katherine, Goodman, Marc T., Giuliano, Armando E., Karanja, Njeri, McAndrew, Philomena, Hudis, Clifford, Butler, John, Merkel, Douglas, Kristal, Alan, Caan, Bette, Michaelson, Richard, Vinciguerra, Vincent, Del Prete, Salvatore, Winkler, Marion, Hall, Rayna, Simon, Michael, Winters, Barbara L., Elashoff, Robert M.·2006·JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
DOI 10.1093/jnci/djj494
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Preclinical and observational studies suggest a relationship between dietary fat intake and breast cancer, but the association remains controversial. We carried out a randomized, prospective, multicenter clinical trial to test the effect of a dietary intervention designed to reduce fat intake in women with resected, early-stage breast cancer receiving conventional cancer management. METHODS: A total of 2437 women were randomly assigned between February 1994 and January 2001 in a ratio of 40:60 to dietary intervention (n = 975) or control (n = 1462) groups. An interim analysis was performed after a median follow-up of 60 months when funding for the intervention ceased. Mean differences between dietary intervention and control groups in nutrient intakes and anthropometric variables were compared with t tests. Relapse-free survival was examined using Kaplan-Meier analysis, stratified log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards models. Statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Dietary fat intake was lower in the intervention than in the control group (fat grams/day at 12 months, 33.3 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 32.2 to 34.5] versus 51.3 [95% CI = 50.0 to 52.7], respectively; P<.001), corresponding to a statistically significant (P = .005), 6-pound lower mean body weight in the intervention group. A total of 277 relapse events (local, regional, distant, or ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence or new contralateral breast cancer) have been reported in 96 of 975 (9.8%) women in the dietary group and 181 of 1462 (12.4%) women in the control group. The hazard ratio of relapse events in the intervention group compared with the control group was 0.76 (95% CI = 0.60 to 0.98, P = .077 for stratified log rank and P = .034 for adjusted Cox model analysis). Exploratory analyses suggested a differential effect of the dietary intervention based on hormonal receptor status. CONCLUSIONS: A lifestyle intervention reducing dietary fat intake, with modest influence on body weight, may improve relapse-free survival of breast cancer patients receiving conventional cancer management. Longer, ongoing nonintervention follow-up will address original protocol design plans, which called for 3 years of follow-up after completion of recruitment.

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/djj494

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

Metadata

Authors
Chlebowski, R. T., Blackburn, G. L., Thomson, C. A., Nixon, D. W., Shapiro, A., Hoy, M. K., Goodman, M. T., Giuliano, A. E., Karanja, N., McAndrew, P., Hudis, C., Butler, J., Merkel, D., Kristal, A., Caan, B., Michaelson, R., Vinciguerra, V., Del Prete, S., Winkler, M., Hall, R., Simon, M., Winters, B. L., & Elashoff, R. M.
Venue
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2006-12-20
Volume
98
Issue
24
Pages
1767-1776
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
DOI
10.1093/jnci/djj494
OpenAlex
W2122704890
Cited by
825
References
4
FWCI
22.63
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

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.