Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 540

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Trial of Long-Term Follow-Up for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Comparison of Family Physician Versus Specialist Care

Grunfeld, Eva, Levine, Mark N., Julian, Jim A., Coyle, Doug, Szechtman, Barbara, Mirsky, Doug, Verma, Shailendara, Dent, Susan, Sawka, Carol, Pritchard, Kathleen I., Ginsburg, David, Wood, Marjorie, Whelan, Tim·2006·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Most women with breast cancer are diagnosed at an early stage and more than 80% will be long-term survivors. Routine follow-up marks the transition from intensive treatment to survivorship. It is usual practice for routine follow-up to take place in specialist clinics. This study tested the hypothesis that follow-up by the patient's family physician is a safe and acceptable alternative to specialist follow-up. Patients and Methods: A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial was conducted involving 968 patients with early-stage breast cancer who had completed adjuvant treatment, were disease free, and were between 9 and 15 months after diagnosis. Patients may have continued receiving adjuvant hormonal therapy. Patients were randomly allocated to follow-up in the cancer center according to usual practice (CC group) or follow-up from their own family physician (FP group). The primary outcome was the rate of recurrence-related serious clinical events (SCEs). The secondary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQL). Results: In the FP group, there were 54 recurrences (11.2%) and 29 deaths (6.0%). In the CC group, there were 64 recurrences (13.2%) and 30 deaths (6.2%). In the FP group, 17 patients (3.5%) compared with 18 patients (3.7%) in the CC group experienced an SCE (0.19% difference; 95% CI, −2.26% to 2.65%). No statistically significant differences (P < .05) were detected between groups on any of the HRQL questionnaires. Conclusion: Breast cancer patients can be offered follow-up by their family physician without concern that important recurrence-related SCEs will occur more frequently or that HRQL will be negatively affected.

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.2005.03.2235

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 540

Metadata

Authors
Grunfeld, E., Levine, M. N., Julian, J. A., Coyle, D., Szechtman, B., Mirsky, D., Verma, S., Dent, S., Sawka, C., Pritchard, K. I., Ginsburg, D., Wood, M., & Whelan, T.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2006-02-20
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
848-855
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2098753081
Cited by
540
References
4
FWCI
14.88
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 Trial of Long-Term Follow-Up for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Comparison of Family Physician Versus Specialist Care. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2005.03.2235
The paper
Grunfeld, E., Levine, M. N., Julian, J. A., Coyle, D., Szechtman, B., Mirsky, D., Verma, S., Dent, S., Sawka, C., Pritchard, K. I., Ginsburg, D., Wood, M., & Whelan, T. (2006). Randomized Trial of Long-Term Follow-Up for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Comparison of Family Physician Versus Specialist Care. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.03.2235

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.