The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Double-Blind, Randomized Placebo Controlled Trial of Fulvestrant Compared With Exemestane After Prior Nonsteroidal Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy in Postmenopausal Women With Hormone Receptor–Positive, Advanced Breast Cancer: Results From EFECT
Abstract
Purpose: The third-generation nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are increasingly used as adjuvant and first-line advanced therapy for postmenopausal, hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer. Because many patients subsequently experience progression or relapse, it is important to identify agents with efficacy after AI failure. Materials and Methods: Evaluation of Faslodex versus Exemestane Clinical Trial (EFECT) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, multicenter phase III trial of fulvestrant versus exemestane in postmenopausal women with HR+ advanced breast cancer (ABC) progressing or recurring after nonsteroidal AI. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). A fulvestrant loading-dose (LD) regimen was used: 500 mg intramuscularly on day 0, 250 mg on days 14, 28, and 250 mg every 28 days thereafter. Exemestane 25 mg orally was administered once daily. Results: A total of 693 women were randomly assigned to fulvestrant (n = 351) or exemestane (n = 342). Approximately 60% of patients had received at least two prior endocrine therapies. Median TTP was 3.7 months in both groups (hazard ratio = 0.963; 95% CI, 0.819 to 1.133; P = .6531). The overall response rate (7.4% v 6.7%; P = .736) and clinical benefit rate (32.2% v 31.5%; P = .853) were similar between fulvestrant and exemestane respectively. Median duration of clinical benefit was 9.3 and 8.3 months, respectively. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events or quality of life. Pharmacokinetic data confirm that steady-state was reached within 1 month with the LD schedule of fulvestrant. Conclusion: Fulvestrant LD and exemestane are equally active and well-tolerated in a meaningful proportion of postmenopausal women with ABC who have experienced progression or recurrence during treatment with a nonsteroidal AI.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Coombes, R. C., Hall, E., Gibson, L. J., Paridaens, R., Jassem, J., Delozier, T., Jones, S. E., Alvarez, I., Bertelli, G., Ortmann, O., et al. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa040331 · Cited by 1,759
Geisler, J., Haynes, B., Anker, G., Dowsett, M., & Lønning, P. E. (2002) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.20.3.751 · Cited by 604
Cited by
Everolimus in Postmenopausal Hormone-Receptor–Positive Advanced Breast Cancer
Baselga, J., Campone, M., Piccart, M., Burris, H. A., Rugo, H. S., Sahmoud, T., Noguchi, S., Gnant, M., Pritchard, K. I., Lebrun, F., et al. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1109653 · Cited by 2,863
Self-citationRibociclib as first-line therapy for HR-positive, advanced breast cancer
Hortobagyi, G. N., Stemmer, S. M., Burris, H. A., Yap, Y.-S., Sonke, G. S., Paluch-Shimon, S., Campone, M., Blackwell, K. L., André, F., Winer, E. P., et al. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1609709 · Cited by 2,039
Piccart, M., Hortobagyi, G. N., Campone, M., Pritchard, K. I., Lebrun, F., Ito, Y., Noguchi, S., Perez, A., Rugo, H. S., Deleu, I., et al. (2014) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu456 · Cited by 574
Self-citationESO-ESMO 2nd international consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC2)
Cardoso, F., Costa, A., Norton, L., Senkus, E., Aapro, M., André, F., Barrios, C. H., Bergh, J., Biganzoli, L., Blackwell, K. L., et al. (2014) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu385 · Cited by 540
Self-citationBaselga, J., Im, S.-A., Iwata, H., Cortés, J., De Laurentiis, M., Jiang, Z., Arteaga, C. L., Jonat, W., Clemons, M., Ito, Y., et al. (2017) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30376-5 · Cited by 533
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Chia, S., Gradishar, W., Mauriac, L., Bines, J., Amant, F., Federico, M., Fein, L., Romieu, G., Buzdar, A., Robertson, J. F. R., Brufsky, A., Possinger, K., Rennie, P., Sapunar, F., Lowe, E., & Piccart, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2008-04-01
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1664-1670
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2102620699
- Cited by
- 513
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 32.55
- 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 Placebo Controlled Trial of Fulvestrant Compared With Exemestane After Prior Nonsteroidal Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy in Postmenopausal Women With Hormone Receptor–Positive, Advanced Breast Cancer: Results From EFECT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2007.13.5822
- The paper
- Chia, S., Gradishar, W., Mauriac, L., Bines, J., Amant, F., Federico, M., Fein, L., Romieu, G., Buzdar, A., Robertson, J. F. R., Brufsky, A., Possinger, K., Rennie, P., Sapunar, F., Lowe, E., & Piccart, M. (2008). Double-Blind, Randomized Placebo Controlled Trial of Fulvestrant Compared With Exemestane After Prior Nonsteroidal Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy in Postmenopausal Women With Hormone Receptor–Positive, Advanced Breast Cancer: Results From EFECT. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.13.5822
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.