Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 216

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Randomized comparison of tamoxifen and two separate doses of toremifene in postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Hayes, D F, Van Zyl, J A, Hacking, A, Goedhals, L, Bezwoda, W R, Mailliard, J A, Jones, S E, Vogel, C L, Berris, R F, Shemano, I·1995·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To perform a randomized three-arm comparison of tamoxifen (TAM; 20 mg/d) and two separate doses of toremifene (TOR; 60 mg/d [TOR60] and 200 mg/d [TOR200]) in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive or -unknown metastatic breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six hundred forty-eight patients with hormone receptor-positive or -unknown metastatic breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive TAM (n = 215), TOR60 (n = 221), or TOR200 (n = 212). RESULTS: The combined response rates (by intent to treat) were as follows;: TAM, 44%; TOR60, 50%; and TOR200, 48%. Complete and partial response rates were as follows: TAM, 19%; TOR60, 21%, and TOR200, 23% (not statistically different). Median times to progression and overall survival were not significantly different. Adverse events (lethal, serious but nonlethal, and important but non-life-threatening) were similar in all three arms, except that patients in the TOR200 arm had a statistically significantly increased rate of nausea (37% v 26% and 26% for TOR200, TAM, and TOR60, respectively; P = .027). Quality-of-life assessments were not different among the three arms. CONCLUSION: The activity, toxicity, and side effects of TOR in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive or -unknown metastatic breast cancer are similar if not equivalent to those of TAM. We detected no clear evidence of a dose-response effect for TOR. TOR60 is an effective and safe agent for the treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer and can be considered an alternative to TAM as first-line treatment for such 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.1995.13.10.2556

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.

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

Cited by

See all 216

Metadata

Authors
Hayes, D. F., Van Zyl, J. A., Hacking, A., Goedhals, L., Bezwoda, W. R., Mailliard, J. A., Jones, S. E., Vogel, C. L., Berris, R. F., & Shemano, I.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1995-10
Volume
13
Issue
10
Pages
2556-2566
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2137792512
Cited by
216
References
0
FWCI
7.16
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: Randomized comparison of tamoxifen and two separate doses of toremifene in postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1995.13.10.2556
The paper
Hayes, D. F., Van Zyl, J. A., Hacking, A., Goedhals, L., Bezwoda, W. R., Mailliard, J. A., Jones, S. E., Vogel, C. L., Berris, R. F., & Shemano, I. (1995). Randomized comparison of tamoxifen and two separate doses of toremifene in postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1995.13.10.2556

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.