The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Relative worth of estrogen or progesterone receptor and pathologic characteristics of differentiation as indicators of prognosis in node negative breast cancer patients: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-06.
Abstract
This study correlates the disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and survival (S) of 1,157 histologically node negative breast cancer patients with the estrogen and/or progesterone receptor (ER, PR) and with the nuclear or histologic grade (NG, HG) of their tumors. All were treated by operation without systemic adjuvant therapy. The DFS, DDFS, and S were significantly greater (P = .005, .004, less than .001) in patients with ER positive than ER negative tumors but the magnitude of the differences after 5 years of follow-up was slight (8% in both DFS and DDFS and 10% in S). Differences of that magnitude are insufficient to discriminate clearly between patients who should or should not receive systemic therapy. As with ER, there were outcome differences in favor of PR positive tumors but only in S was the difference significant (8% at 5 years; P = .002). When combined with ER, PR made no independent contribution in the outcome prediction. Regression analysis indicated that NG was the most important single marker of outcome. The prognosis of women with unknown ER or PR was equivalent to or better than that in those with ER or PR positive tumors. This finding seems to be related to tumor size in that a higher proportion of tumors with unknown receptors were less than 1.0 cm, thus having insufficient tissue for analysis. Our findings disclose that in node negative breast cancer patients, NG is a better marker of prognosis than is tumor ER, and that PR is of little or no value. Tumor NG may also be useful for selecting the type of systemic therapy to be used in these patients.
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
Liedtke, C., Mazouni, C., Hess, K. R., André, F., Tordai, A., Mejia, J. A., Symmans, W. F., Gonzalez-Angulo, A. M., Hennessy, B., Green, M., et al. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2007.14.4147 · Cited by 2,892
Breast Cancer—Epidemiology, Classification, Pathogenesis and Treatment (Review of Literature)
Smolarz, B., Nowak, A. Z., & Romanowicz, H. (2022) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers14102569 · Cited by 587
Impact of axillary lymph node dissection on the therapy of breast cancer patients.
Lin, P. P., Allison, D. C., Wainstock, J., Miller, K. D., Dooley, W. C., Friedman, N., & Baker, R. R. (1993) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1993.11.8.1536 · Cited by 277
Young age: an independent risk factor for disease-free survival in women with operable breast cancer
Han, W., Kim, S. W., Ae Park, I., Kang, D., Kim, S.-W., Youn, Y.-K., Oh, S. K., Choe, K. J., & Noh, D.-Y. (2004) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/1471-2407-4-82 · Cited by 259
Metadata
- Authors
- Fisher, B., Redmond, C., Fisher, E. R., & Caplan, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 1988-07
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1076-1087
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W1924240366
- Cited by
- 419
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.61
- 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: Relative worth of estrogen or progesterone receptor and pathologic characteristics of differentiation as indicators of prognosis in node negative breast cancer patients: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-06. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1988.6.7.1076
- The paper
- Fisher, B., Redmond, C., Fisher, E. R., & Caplan, R. (1988). Relative worth of estrogen or progesterone receptor and pathologic characteristics of differentiation as indicators of prognosis in node negative breast cancer patients: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-06. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1988.6.7.1076
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.