Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,084

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Locoregional Relapse and Distant Metastasis in Conservatively Managed Triple Negative Early-Stage Breast Cancer

Open access
Haffty, Bruce G., Yang, Qifeng, Reiss, Michael, Kearney, Thomas, Higgins, Susan A., Weidhaas, Joanne, Harris, Lyndsay, Hait, Willam, Toppmeyer, Deborah·2006·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the prognostic significance of triple negative breast cancers with respect to locoregional relapse and distant metastasis in conservatively managed breast cancer patients. Patients and Methods: A database of conservative managed (conservative surgery followed by radiation) patients, in whom all three markers (estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2/neu) were available, was reviewed. Patients were classified as triple negative if they tested negative for all three markers. Of 482 patients with all three markers available, 117 were classified as triple negative. Results: As of September 2005, with a median follow-up time of 7.9 years, of the 482 patients in the study, there have been 53 in-breast relapses, 10 nodal relapses, 77 distant relapses, and 69 deaths. At 5 years, the triple negative cohort had a poorer distant metastasis-free rate compared with the other subtypes (67% v 82%, respectively; P = .002). Triple negative subtype was an independent predictor of distant metastasis (hazard ratio = 2.14; 95% CI, 1.31 to 3.53; P = .002) and cause-specific survival (hazard ratio = 1.79; 95% CI, 1.03 to 3.22; P = .047). There was no significant difference in local control between the triple negative and other subtypes (83% v 83%, respectively). Of 99 BRCA-tested patients in this cohort, 10 had deleterious mutations in BRCA1, and seven had mutations in BRCA2. Of 10 BRCA1 patients, eight were triple negative, whereas only one of seven BRCA2 patients was triple negative (P < .001). Conclusion: Patients classified as triple negative have a poor prognosis. However, there was no evidence that these patients are at higher risk for local relapse after conservative surgery and radiation. Patients with BRCA1 mutations develop predominantly triple negative tumors.

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.2006.06.5664

Cites

21 of 21 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 21 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Charafe-Jauffret E, Ginestier C, Monville F, et al: How to best classify breast cancer: Conventional and novel classifications. Int J Oncol 27:1307,2005-1313, · doi:10.3892/ijo.27.5.1307
  2. 10.1016/0360-3016(88)90043-0 · doi:10.1016/0360-3016(88)90043-0
  3. 10.1200/JCO.2002.07.137 · doi:10.1200/jco.2002.07.137

Cited by

See all 1,084

Metadata

Authors
Haffty, B. G., Yang, Q., Reiss, M., Kearney, T., Higgins, S. A., Weidhaas, J., Harris, L., Hait, W., & Toppmeyer, D.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2006-12-20
Volume
24
Issue
36
Pages
5652-5657
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2138929540
Cited by
1,084
References
21
FWCI
14.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Locoregional Relapse and Distant Metastasis in Conservatively Managed Triple Negative Early-Stage Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2006.06.5664
The paper
Haffty, B. G., Yang, Q., Reiss, M., Kearney, T., Higgins, S. A., Weidhaas, J., Harris, L., Hait, W., & Toppmeyer, D. (2006). Locoregional Relapse and Distant Metastasis in Conservatively Managed Triple Negative Early-Stage Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.06.5664

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.