Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 621

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

Comparison of PAM50 Risk of Recurrence Score With Onco type DX and IHC4 for Predicting Risk of Distant Recurrence After Endocrine Therapy

Open access
Dowsett, Mitch, Sestak, Ivana, Lopez-Knowles, Elena, Sidhu, Kalvinder, Dunbier, Anita K., Cowens, J. Wayne, Ferree, Sean, Storhoff, James, Schaper, Carl, Cuzick, Jack·2013·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Risk of distant recurrence (DR) among women with estrogen receptor (ER) –positive early breast cancer is the major determinant of recommendations for or against chemotherapy. It is frequently estimated using the Oncotype DX recurrence score (RS). The PAM50 risk of recurrence (ROR) score provides an alternative approach, which also identifies intrinsic subtypes. Patients and Methods: mRNA from 1,017 patients with ER-positive primary breast cancer treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen in the ATAC trial was assessed for ROR using the NanoString nCounter. Likelihood ratio (LR) tests and concordance indices (c indices) were used to assess the prognostic information provided beyond that of a clinical treatment score (CTS) by RS, ROR, or IHC4, an index of DR risk derived from immunohistochemical assessment of ER, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and Ki67. Results: ROR added significant prognostic information beyond CTS in all patients (Δ LR-χ 2 = 33.9; P < .001) and in all four subgroups: node negative, node positive, HER2 negative, and HER2 negative/node negative; more information was added by ROR than by RS. C indices in the HER2-negative/node-negative subgroup were 0.73, 0.76, and 0.78 for CTS, CTS plus RS, and CTS plus ROR, respectively. More patients were scored as high risk and fewer as intermediate risk by ROR than by RS. Relatively similar prognostic information was added by ROR and IHC4 in all patients but more by ROR in the HER2-negative/node-negative group. Conclusion: ROR provides more prognostic information in endocrine-treated patients with ER-positive, node-negative disease than RS, with better differentiation of intermediate- and higher-risk groups.

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.2012.46.1558

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

Cited by

See all 621

Metadata

Authors
Dowsett, M., Sestak, I., Lopez-Knowles, E., Sidhu, K., Dunbier, A. K., Cowens, J. W., Ferree, S., Storhoff, J., Schaper, C., & Cuzick, J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2013-08-01
Volume
31
Issue
22
Pages
2783-2790
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2140628034
Cited by
621
References
1
FWCI
23.28
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: Comparison of PAM50 Risk of Recurrence Score With Onco type DX and IHC4 for Predicting Risk of Distant Recurrence After Endocrine Therapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2012.46.1558
The paper
Dowsett, M., Sestak, I., Lopez-Knowles, E., Sidhu, K., Dunbier, A. K., Cowens, J. W., Ferree, S., Storhoff, J., Schaper, C., & Cuzick, J. (2013). Comparison of PAM50 Risk of Recurrence Score With Onco type DX and IHC4 for Predicting Risk of Distant Recurrence After Endocrine Therapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2012.46.1558

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.