Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 516

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Variability in Reexcision Following Breast Conservation Surgery

McCahill, Laurence E., Single, Richard M., Aiello Bowles, Erin J., Feigelson, Heather S., James, Ted A., Barney, Tom, Engel, Jessica M., Onitilo, Adedayo A.·2012·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Health care reform calls for increasing physician accountability and transparency of outcomes. Partial mastectomy is the most commonly performed procedure for invasive breast cancer and often requires reexcision. Variability in reexcision might be reflective of the quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To assess hospital and surgeon-specific variation in reexcision rates following partial mastectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: An observational study of breast surgery performed between 2003 and 2008 intended to evaluate variability in breast cancer surgical care outcomes and evaluate potential quality measures of breast cancer surgery. Women with invasive breast cancer undergoing partial mastectomy from 4 institutions were studied (1 university hospital [University of Vermont] and 3 large health plans [Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Group Health, and Marshfield Clinic]). Data were obtained from electronic medical records and chart abstraction of surgical, pathology, radiology, and outpatient records, including detailed surgical margin status. Logistic regression including surgeon-level random effects was used to identify predictors of reexcision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incidence of reexcision. RESULTS: A total of 2206 women with 2220 invasive breast cancers underwent partial mastectomy and 509 patients (22.9%; 95% CI, 21.2%-24.7%) underwent reexcision (454 patients [89.2%; 95% CI, 86.5%-91.9%] had 1 reexcision, 48 [9.4%; 95% CI, 6.9%-12.0%] had 2 reexcisions, and 7 [1.4%; 95% CI, 0.4%-2.4%] had 3 reexcisions). Among all patients undergoing initial partial mastectomy, total mastectomy was performed in 190 patients (8.5%; 95% CI, 7.2%-9.5%). Reexcision rates for margin status following initial surgery were 85.9% (95% CI, 82.0%-89.8%) for initial positive margins, 47.9% (95% CI, 42.0%-53.9%) for less than 1.0 mm margins, 20.2% (95% CI, 15.3%-25.0%) for 1.0 to 1.9 mm margins, and 6.3% (95% CI, 3.2%-9.3%) for 2.0 to 2.9 mm margins. For patients with negative margins, reexcision rates varied widely among surgeons (range, 0%-70%; P = .003) and institutions (range, 1.7%-20.9%; P < .001). Reexcision rates were not associated with surgeon procedure volume after adjusting for case mix (P = .92). CONCLUSION: Substantial surgeon and institutional variation were observed in reexcision following partial mastectomy in women with invasive breast cancer.

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 · 10.1001/jama.2012.43

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.

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

Cited by

See all 516

Metadata

Authors
McCahill, L. E., Single, R. M., Aiello Bowles, E. J., Feigelson, H. S., James, T. A., Barney, T., Engel, J. M., & Onitilo, A. A.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2012-02-01
Volume
307
Issue
5
Pages
467
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2005903771
Cited by
516
References
0
FWCI
12.82
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: Variability in Reexcision Following Breast Conservation Surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2012.43
The paper
McCahill, L. E., Single, R. M., Aiello Bowles, E. J., Feigelson, H. S., James, T. A., Barney, T., Engel, J. M., & Onitilo, A. A. (2012). Variability in Reexcision Following Breast Conservation Surgery. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.43

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.