Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 242

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prospective Evaluation of Paclitaxel Versus Combination Chemotherapy With Fluorouracil, Doxorubicin, and Cyclophosphamide as Neoadjuvant Therapy in Patients With Operable Breast Cancer

Buzdar, Aman U., Singletary, S. Eva, Theriault, Richard L., Booser, Daniel J., Valero, Vicente, Ibrahim, Nuhad, Smith, Terry L., Asmar, Lina, Frye, Debra, Manuel, Nikki, Kau, Shu-Wan, McNeese, Marsha, Strom, Eric, Hunt, Kelly, Ames, Frederick, Hortobagyi, Gabriel N.·1999·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare prospectively the antitumor activity of single-agent paclitaxel to the three-drug combination of fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with operable breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with T1-3N0-1M0 disease were randomized to receive either paclitaxel (250 mg/m 2) as 24-hour infusion or FAC in standard doses at every-3-week intervals. Each patient was treated with four cycles of preoperative chemotherapy. Clinical response and extent of residual disease in the breast and lymph nodes was assessed after four cycles of induction chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 174 patients were registered, and 87 were randomized to each arm of the study. Clinical response, ie, complete and partial responses, was similar in both arms of the study. Three patients in the FAC arm and one patient in the paclitaxel subgroup had progressive disease. The extent of residual disease by intent-to-treat analysis at the time of surgery was similar between the two arms of the study. CONCLUSION: The results of this prospective study demonstrated that single-agent paclitaxel as neoadjuvant therapy has significant antitumor activity, and this was clinically comparable to FAC. Similar fractions of patients had clinical complete and partial responses, and very few patients had no response to either therapy. The value of alternate non–cross-resistant therapies as used in this protocol on the clinical course of this disease would require longer follow-up.

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.1999.17.11.3412

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 242

Metadata

Authors
Buzdar, A. U., Singletary, S. E., Theriault, R. L., Booser, D. J., Valero, V., Ibrahim, N., Smith, T. L., Asmar, L., Frye, D., Manuel, N., Kau, S.-W., McNeese, M., Strom, E., Hunt, K., Ames, F., & Hortobagyi, G. N.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1999-11
Volume
17
Issue
11
Pages
3412-3417
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1948389446
Cited by
242
References
0
FWCI
4.89
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: Prospective Evaluation of Paclitaxel Versus Combination Chemotherapy With Fluorouracil, Doxorubicin, and Cyclophosphamide as Neoadjuvant Therapy in Patients With Operable Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1999.17.11.3412
The paper
Buzdar, A. U., Singletary, S. E., Theriault, R. L., Booser, D. J., Valero, V., Ibrahim, N., Smith, T. L., Asmar, L., Frye, D., Manuel, N., Kau, S.-W., McNeese, M., Strom, E., Hunt, K., Ames, F., & Hortobagyi, G. N. (1999). Prospective Evaluation of Paclitaxel Versus Combination Chemotherapy With Fluorouracil, Doxorubicin, and Cyclophosphamide as Neoadjuvant Therapy in Patients With Operable Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1999.17.11.3412

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.