Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 169

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

Differences in breast cancer prognosis among African-American and Caucasian women

Open access
Dignam, J. J.·2000·CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians

Abstract

This review explores factors potentially contributing to the disparity in survival after breast cancer between African-American and Caucasian women in the United States. A number of factors have been implicated as the cause of poorer survival for black women, including clinical and pathologic features of the disease that are indicative of poor prognosis, economic resource inequities, and differences in treatment access and efficacy. The latter is explored in detail using data from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), a nationwide multicenter clinical trials group for breast and colorectal cancers. Key studies into the disparity in breast cancer survival are reviewed according to proposed principal determinants of poorer outcome for black women. Results among black and white women participating in several randomized NSABP clinical trials are also presented. Primary endpoints in those studies were clinical and pathologic disease characteristics at study entry, time to disease progression or new cancers, and total survival time after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. In most studies reported in the literature, the primary explanatory factor alone, such as stage of disease at diagnosis, did not fully account for differences in outcome between groups; when additional factors were taken into account, however, prognoses became more similar. Results from the NSABP clinical trials similarly indicated that when stage of disease and treatment were comparable, outcomes for blacks did not differ markedly from those of whites. In summary, black women, diagnosed at comparable disease stage as white women and treated appropriately, tend to experience similar breast cancer prognoses and survival. However, important clinical and pathologic disease characteristics may continue to place certain women at increased risk of poorer outcome, and warrant continued study. The opportunity for increased clinical trial participation by black women is encouraged.

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 · 10.3322/canjclin.50.1.50

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 169

Metadata

Authors
Dignam, J. J.
Venue
CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-01-01
Volume
50
Issue
1
Pages
50-64
ISSN
0007-9235 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2055144649
Cited by
169
References
2
FWCI
5.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Differences in breast cancer prognosis among African-American and Caucasian women. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3322/canjclin.50.1.50
The paper
Dignam, J. J. (2000). Differences in breast cancer prognosis among African-American and Caucasian women. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.50.1.50

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.