Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 224

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improved methodology for analyzing local and distant recurrence.

Gelman, R, Gelber, R, Henderson, I C, Coleman, C N, Harris, J R·1990·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Studies of radiation therapy and/or surgery in the treatment of cancer frequently use actuarial methods to estimate curves of time to local failure and compare two such curves with statistical methods originally developed for survival data. In such analyses, patients who fail first in distant sites or die before local failure are considered censored for time to local failure. While the arithmetic of these calculations is usually correct, the interpretation of the results is almost universally incorrect. For example, an actuarial Kaplan-Meier curve of time to breast recurrence after breast conserving treatment consistently overestimates the percentage of patients who would benefit from a subsequent mastectomy. Actuarial methods require the assumption that time to local failure and time to distant failure are statistically independent. For most human malignancies this is not a reasonable assumption, since there are always some patient subgroups at high risk of both local and distant failure and some patient subgroups at low risk for either type of failure. Without the assumption of independence, the time to local failure distribution is not well defined. The basic problem is that estimating time to local failure falls into the category of analyzing "competing risks," since the various causes of failure are competing for the same patient. For this reason, the effects of a particular treatment on local failure cannot be assessed separately from its effects on distant failure. This report explains the concepts of statistical independence, nonidentifiability, and competing risks and illustrates the pitfalls of using actuarial methods to assess local tumor control.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

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 · 10.1200/jco.1990.8.3.548

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Metadata

Authors
Gelman, R., Gelber, R., Henderson, I. C., Coleman, C. N., & Harris, J. R.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1990-03
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
548-555
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2105365583
Cited by
224
References
1
FWCI
4.00
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: Improved methodology for analyzing local and distant recurrence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1990.8.3.548
The paper
Gelman, R., Gelber, R., Henderson, I. C., Coleman, C. N., & Harris, J. R. (1990). Improved methodology for analyzing local and distant recurrence. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1990.8.3.548

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.