Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 864

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

Proposal for Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points in Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trials: The STEEP System

Open access
Hudis, Clifford A., Barlow, William E., Costantino, Joseph P., Gray, Robert J., Pritchard, Kathleen I., Chapman, Judith-Anne W., Sparano, Joseph A., Hunsberger, Sally, Enos, Rebecca A., Gelber, Richard D., Zujewski, Jo Anne·2007·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Standardized definitions of breast cancer clinical trial end points must be adopted to permit the consistent interpretation and analysis of breast cancer clinical trials and to facilitate cross-trial comparisons and meta-analyses. Standardizing terms will allow for uniformity in data collection across studies, which will optimize clinical trial utility and efficiency. A given end point term (eg, overall survival) used in a breast cancer trial should always encompass the same set of events (eg, death attributable to breast cancer, death attributable to cause other than breast cancer, death from unknown cause), and, in turn, each event within that end point should be commonly defined across end points and studies. Methods: A panel of experts in breast cancer clinical trials representing medical oncology, biostatistics, and correlative science convened to formulate standard definitions and address the confusion that nonstandard definitions of widely used end point terms for a breast cancer clinical trial can generate. We propose standard definitions for efficacy end points and events in early-stage adjuvant breast cancer clinical trials. In some cases, it is expected that the standard end points may not address a specific trial question, so that modified or customized end points would need to be prospectively defined and consistently used. Conclusion: The use of the proposed common end point definitions will facilitate interpretation of trial outcomes. This approach may be adopted to develop standard outcome definitions for use in trials involving other cancer sites.

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.2006.10.3523

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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. 10.1056/NEJMoa032312 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09088-8 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1056/NEJMoa052258 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67059-6 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL: The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data (ed 2). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, pp 195,2002-196 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 864

Metadata

Authors
Hudis, C. A., Barlow, W. E., Costantino, J. P., Gray, R. J., Pritchard, K. I., Chapman, J.-A. W., Sparano, J. A., Hunsberger, S., Enos, R. A., Gelber, R. D., & Zujewski, J. A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2007-05-20
Volume
25
Issue
15
Pages
2127-2132
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2096864872
Cited by
864
References
1
FWCI
7.50
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: Proposal for Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points in Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trials: The STEEP System. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2006.10.3523
The paper
Hudis, C. A., Barlow, W. E., Costantino, J. P., Gray, R. J., Pritchard, K. I., Chapman, J.-A. W., Sparano, J. A., Hunsberger, S., Enos, R. A., Gelber, R. D., & Zujewski, J. A. (2007). Proposal for Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points in Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trials: The STEEP System. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.10.3523

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.