Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 642

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Double-Blind, Randomized Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Tolerability of Fulvestrant Versus Anastrozole in Postmenopausal Women With Advanced Breast Cancer Progressing on Prior Endocrine Therapy: Results of a North American Trial

Osborne, C.K., Pippen, J., Jones, S.E., Parker, L.M., Ellis, M., Come, S., Gertler, S.Z., May, J.T., Burton, G., Dimery, I., Webster, A., Morris, C., Elledge, R., Buzdar, A.·2002·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of fulvestrant (formerly ICI 182,780) with anastrozole in the treatment of advanced breast cancer in patients whose disease progresses on prior endocrine treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study, postmenopausal patients were randomized to receive either an intramuscular injection of fulvestrant 250 mg once monthly or a daily oral dose of anastrozole 1 mg. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). Secondary end points included objective response (OR) rate, duration of response (DOR), and tolerability. RESULTS: Patients (n = 400) were followed for a median period of 16.8 months. Fulvestrant was as effective as anastrozole in terms of TTP (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95.14% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.14; P = .43); median TTP was 5.4 months with fulvestrant and 3.4 months with anastrozole. OR rates were 17.5% with both treatments. Clinical benefit rates (complete response + partial response + stable disease ≥ 24 weeks) were 42.2% for fulvestrant and 36.1% for anastrozole (95% CI, −4.00% to 16.41%; P = .26). In responding patients, median DOR (from randomization to progression) was 19.0 months for fulvestrant and 10.8 months for anastrozole. Using all patients, DOR was significantly greater for fulvestrant compared with anastrozole; the ratio of average response durations was 1.35 (95% CI, 1.10 to 1.67; P < 0.01). Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Fulvestrant was at least as effective as anastrozole, with efficacy end points slightly favoring fulvestrant. Fulvestrant represents an additional treatment option for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer whose disease progresses on tamoxifen therapy.

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.2002.10.058

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 642

Metadata

Authors
Osborne, C. K., Pippen, J., Jones, S. E., Parker, L. M., Ellis, M., Come, S., Gertler, S. Z., May, J. T., Burton, G., Dimery, I., Webster, A., Morris, C., Elledge, R., & Buzdar, A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2002-08-15
Volume
20
Issue
16
Pages
3386-3395
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2139726760
Cited by
642
References
2
FWCI
37.55
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: Double-Blind, Randomized Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Tolerability of Fulvestrant Versus Anastrozole in Postmenopausal Women With Advanced Breast Cancer Progressing on Prior Endocrine Therapy: Results of a North American Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2002.10.058
The paper
Osborne, C. K., Pippen, J., Jones, S. E., Parker, L. M., Ellis, M., Come, S., Gertler, S. Z., May, J. T., Burton, G., Dimery, I., Webster, A., Morris, C., Elledge, R., & Buzdar, A. (2002). Double-Blind, Randomized Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Tolerability of Fulvestrant Versus Anastrozole in Postmenopausal Women With Advanced Breast Cancer Progressing on Prior Endocrine Therapy: Results of a North American Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2002.10.058

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.