The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Adjuvant Dose-Dense Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: Standard of Care in High-Risk Patients
Open accessAbstract
Meta-analyses persistently confirm the superiority of dose-dense chemotherapy in comparison with standard chemotherapy. In contrast, individual studies have shown conflicting results. These may be explained by different risk profiles of the treated patient populations. Some trials show a significant advantage in disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in the estrogen receptor (ER)-negative population only, whereas trials with high-risk populations like GIM-2 (Gruppo Italiano Mammella) and AGO-iddETC (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie, intense dose-dense epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide) show a significant superiority in DFS and OS for both, ER-negative and ER-positive patients even after 7 and 10 years, respectively, of follow-up. In contrast, the 10-year follow-up data of the E1199/Intergroup trial no longer showed any superiority of weekly paclitaxel for ER-positive/HER2-negative patients; superiority was observed in the triple-negative subgroup only. Although a direct head-to-head comparison is missing, iddETC or 4 cycles each of dose-dense epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel are the preferred adjuvant regimens for patients at risk. Patients with ≥ 4 positive lymph nodes should preferentially be treated with iddETC.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Treatment landscape of triple-negative breast cancer — expanded options, evolving needs
Bianchini, G., De Angelis, C., Licata, L., & Gianni, L. (2022) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41571-021-00565-2 · Cited by 1,382
Adams, S., Gray, R. J., Demaria, S., Goldstein, L., Perez, E. A., Shulman, L. N., Martino, S., Wang, M., Jones, V. E., Saphner, T. J., et al. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2013.55.0491 · Cited by 1,299
Curigliano, G., Burstein, H. J., Winer, E. P., Gnant, M., Dubsky, P., Loibl, S., Colleoni, M., Regan, M. M., Piccart-Gebhart, M., Senn, H.-J., et al. (2017) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx308 · Cited by 1,205
Hatzis, C. (2011) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2011.593 · Cited by 699
Weekly vs. Every-3-Week Paclitaxel and Carboplatin for Ovarian Cancer
Chan, J. K., Brady, M. F., Penson, R. T., Huang, H., Birrer, M. J., Walker, J. L., DiSilvestro, P. A., Rubin, S. C., Martin, L. P., Davidson, S. A., et al. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1505067 · Cited by 367
Metadata
- Authors
- Möbus, V.
- Venue
- Breast Care
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2016
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 8-12
- ISSN
- 1661-3791 (ISSN-L)
- 1661-3805
- OpenAlex
- W2336410037
- Cited by
- 354
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Adjuvant Dose-Dense Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: Standard of Care in High-Risk Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000444004
- The paper
- Möbus, V. (2016). Adjuvant Dose-Dense Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: Standard of Care in High-Risk Patients. Breast Care. https://doi.org/10.1159/000444004
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.