Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 260

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

Retrospective Analysis of Time to Recurrence in the ATAC Trial According to Hormone Receptor Status: An Hypothesis-Generating Study

Dowsett, Mitch, Cuzick, Jack, Wale, Chris, Howell, Tony, Houghton, Joan, Baum, Michael·2005·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Arimidex, tamoxifen alone, or in combination (ATAC) trial of anastrozole (Arimidex) versus tamoxifen or a combination of the two in 9,366 postmenopausal patients with primary breast cancer found a significant improvement in disease-free survival and time to recurrence (TTR) for anastrozole compared with tamoxifen, that was restricted to patients with hormone receptor-positive (ie, estrogen receptor–positive [ER+] and/or progesterone receptor-positive [PgR+]) disease, the target population for these therapies. We retrospectively tested the hypothesis that this benefit might differ according to PgR status. Patients and Methods: TTR was compared between the three treatment groups for subgroups defined by ER and PgR status using Cox's proportional hazards model, with and without adjustment for baseline variables. Results: The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for anastrozole versus tamoxifen for TTR was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.87) for women with either ER+ or PgR+ tumors. In the ER+/PgR+ subgroup (n = 3,834) the HR was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.69 to 1.02) compared with 0.43 (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.61) in the ER+/PgR-negative (PgR–) subgroup (n = 880). In the adjusted model the HRs were 0.83 and 0.45, respectively. Conclusion: Time to recurrence was longer for anastrozole- than tamoxifen-treated patients in both ER+/PgR+ and ER+/PgR– subgroups, but the benefit was substantially greater in the PgR– subgroup. As this was an “exploratory” analysis, this effect should be considered as hypothesis generating and assessed prospectively in other trials comparing the adjuvant use of an aromatase inhibitor with tamoxifen.

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.2005.01.4829

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

Cited by

See all 260

Metadata

Authors
Dowsett, M., Cuzick, J., Wale, C., Howell, T., Houghton, J., & Baum, M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2005-10-20
Volume
23
Issue
30
Pages
7512-7517
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2097908725
Cited by
260
References
1
FWCI
14.29
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: Retrospective Analysis of Time to Recurrence in the ATAC Trial According to Hormone Receptor Status: An Hypothesis-Generating Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2005.01.4829
The paper
Dowsett, M., Cuzick, J., Wale, C., Howell, T., Houghton, J., & Baum, M. (2005). Retrospective Analysis of Time to Recurrence in the ATAC Trial According to Hormone Receptor Status: An Hypothesis-Generating Study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.01.4829

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.