Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 813

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Meta-Analysis of Breast Cancer Outcomes in Adjuvant Trials of Aromatase Inhibitors Versus Tamoxifen

Dowsett, Mitch, Cuzick, Jack, Ingle, Jim, Coates, Alan, Forbes, John, Bliss, Judith, Buyse, Marc, Baum, Michael, Buzdar, Aman, Colleoni, Marco, Coombes, Charles, Snowdon, Claire, Gnant, Michael, Jakesz, Raimund, Kaufmann, Manfred, Boccardo, Francesco, Godwin, Jon, Davies, Christina, Peto, Richard·2010·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To conduct meta-analyses of randomized trials of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) compared with tamoxifen either as initial monotherapy (cohort 1) or after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen (cohort 2). Materials and Methods: Data submitted to the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group were used in separate meta-analyses of two cohorts. Primary analyses involve postmenopausal women with tumors reported to be estrogen receptor positive. Log-rank P values are two-sided. Results: Cohort 1 comprised 9,856 patients with a mean of 5.8 years of follow-up. At 5 years, AI therapy was associated with an absolute 2.9% (SE = 0.7%) decrease in recurrence (9.6% for AI v 12.6% for tamoxifen; 2P < .00001) and a nonsignificant absolute 1.1% (SE = 0.5%) decrease in breast cancer mortality (4.8% for AI v 5.9% for tamoxifen; 2P = .1). Cohort 2 comprised 9,015 patients with a mean of 3.9 years of follow-up. At 3 years from treatment divergence (ie, approximately 5 years after starting hormonal treatment), AI therapy was associated with an absolute 3.1% (SE = 0.6%) decrease in recurrence (5.0% for AI v 8.1% for tamoxifen since divergence; 2P < .00001) and an absolute 0.7% (SE = 0.3%) decrease in breast cancer mortality (1.7% for AI v 2.4% for tamoxifen since divergence; 2P = .02). There was no convincing heterogeneity in the proportional recurrence reduction with respect to age, nodal status, tumor grade, or progesterone receptor status and no indication of an increase in nonbreast deaths with AIs in either cohort. Conclusion: AIs produce significantly lower recurrence rates compared with tamoxifen, either as initial monotherapy or after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen. Additional follow-up will provide clearer information on long-term survival.

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.2009.23.1274

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 813

Metadata

Authors
Dowsett, M., Cuzick, J., Ingle, J., Coates, A., Forbes, J., Bliss, J., Buyse, M., Baum, M., Buzdar, A., Colleoni, M., Coombes, C., Snowdon, C., Gnant, M., Jakesz, R., Kaufmann, M., Boccardo, F., Godwin, J., Davies, C., & Peto, R.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2010-01-20
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
509-518
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2015473392
Cited by
813
References
2
FWCI
2.24
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: Meta-Analysis of Breast Cancer Outcomes in Adjuvant Trials of Aromatase Inhibitors Versus Tamoxifen. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2009.23.1274
The paper
Dowsett, M., Cuzick, J., Ingle, J., Coates, A., Forbes, J., Bliss, J., Buyse, M., Baum, M., Buzdar, A., Colleoni, M., Coombes, C., Snowdon, C., Gnant, M., Jakesz, R., Kaufmann, M., Boccardo, F., Godwin, J., Davies, C., & Peto, R. (2010). Meta-Analysis of Breast Cancer Outcomes in Adjuvant Trials of Aromatase Inhibitors Versus Tamoxifen. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.23.1274

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.