Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 315

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Change in Survival in Metastatic Breast Cancer with Treatment Advances: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Open access
Caswell-Jin, Jennifer L, Plevritis, Sylvia K, Tian, Lu, Cadham, Christopher J, Xu, Cong, Stout, Natasha K, Sledge, George W, Mandelblatt, Jeanne S, Kurian, Allison W·2018·JNCI Cancer Spectrum

Abstract

Background: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treatment has changed substantially over time, but we do not know whether survival post-metastasis has improved at the population level. Methods: We searched for studies of MBC patients that reported survival after metastasis in at least two time periods between 1970 and the present. We used meta-regression models to test for survival improvement over time in four disease groups: recurrent, recurrent estrogen (ER)-positive, recurrent ER-negative, and de novo stage IV. We performed sensitivity analyses based on bias in some studies that could lead earlier cohorts to include more aggressive cancers. Results: There were 15 studies of recurrent MBC (N = 18 678 patients; 3073 ER-positive and 1239 ER-negative); meta-regression showed no survival improvement among patients recurring between 1980 and 1990, but median survival increased from 21 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 18 to 25) months to 38 (95% CI = 31 to 47) months from 1990 to 2010. For ER-positive MBC patients, median survival increased during 1990–2010 from 32 (95% CI = 23 to 43) to 57 (95% CI = 37 to 87) months, and for ER-negative MBC patients from 14 (95% CI = 11 to 19) to 33 (95% CI = 21 to 51) months. Among eight studies (N = 35 831) of de novo stage IV MBC, median survival increased during 1990–2010 from 20 (95% CI = 16 to 24) to 31 (95% CI = 24 to 39) months. Results did not change in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: By bridging studies over time, we demonstrated improvements in survival for recurrent and de novo stage IV MBC overall and across ER-defined subtypes since 1990. These results can inform patient-doctor discussions about MBC prognosis and 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/jncics/pky062

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 315

Metadata

Authors
Caswell-Jin, J. L., Plevritis, S. K., Tian, L., Cadham, C. J., Xu, C., Stout, N. K., Sledge, G. W., Mandelblatt, J. S., & Kurian, A. W.
Venue
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
Published
2018-10-01
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
pky062-pky062
ISSN
2515-5091 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2905887518
Cited by
315
References
6
FWCI
2.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Change in Survival in Metastatic Breast Cancer with Treatment Advances: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jncics/pky062
The paper
Caswell-Jin, J. L., Plevritis, S. K., Tian, L., Cadham, C. J., Xu, C., Stout, N. K., Sledge, G. W., Mandelblatt, J. S., & Kurian, A. W. (2018). Change in Survival in Metastatic Breast Cancer with Treatment Advances: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. JNCI Cancer Spectrum. https://doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pky062

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.