The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Use of and Mortality After Bilateral Mastectomy Compared With Other Surgical Treatments for Breast Cancer in California, 1998-2011
Open accessAbstract
IMPORTANCE: Bilateral mastectomy is increasingly used to treat unilateral breast cancer. Because it may have medical and psychosocial complications, a better understanding of its use and outcomes is essential to optimizing cancer care. OBJECTIVE: To compare use of and mortality after bilateral mastectomy, breast-conserving therapy with radiation, and unilateral mastectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study within the population-based California Cancer Registry; participants were women diagnosed with stages 0-III unilateral breast cancer in California from 1998 through 2011, with median follow-up of 89.1 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Factors associated with surgery use (from polytomous logistic regression); overall and breast cancer-specific mortality (from propensity score weighting and Cox proportional hazards analysis). RESULTS: Among 189,734 patients, the rate of bilateral mastectomy increased from 2.0% (95% CI, 1.7%-2.2%) in 1998 to 12.3% (95% CI, 11.8%-12.9%) in 2011, an annual increase of 14.3% (95% CI, 13.1%-15.5%); among women younger than 40 years, the rate increased from 3.6% (95% CI, 2.3%-5.0%) in 1998 to 33% (95% CI, 29.8%-36.5%) in 2011. Bilateral mastectomy was more often used by non-Hispanic white women, those with private insurance, and those who received care at a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer center (8.6% [95% CI, 8.1%-9.2%] among NCI cancer center patients vs 6.0% [95% CI, 5.9%-6.1%] among non-NCI cancer center patients; odds ratio [OR], 1.13 [95% CI, 1.04-1.22]); in contrast, unilateral mastectomy was more often used by racial/ethnic minorities (Filipina, 52.8% [95% CI, 51.6%-54.0%]; OR, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.90-2.11] and Hispanic, 45.6% [95% CI, 45.0%-46.2%]; OR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.13-1.20] vs non-Hispanic white, 35.2% [95% CI, 34.9%-35.5%]) and those with public/Medicaid insurance (48.4% [95% CI, 47.8%-48.9%]; OR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.05-1.11] vs private insurance, 36.6% [95% CI, 36.3%-36.8%]). Compared with breast-conserving surgery with radiation (10-year mortality, 16.8% [95% CI, 16.6%-17.1%]), unilateral mastectomy was associated with higher all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.32-1.39]; 10-year mortality, 20.1% [95% CI, 19.9%-20.4%]). There was no significant mortality difference compared with bilateral mastectomy (HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.94-1.11]; 10-year mortality, 18.8% [95% CI, 18.6%-19.0%]). Propensity analysis showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Use of bilateral mastectomy increased significantly throughout California from 1998 through 2011 and was not associated with lower mortality than that achieved with breast-conserving surgery plus radiation. Unilateral mastectomy was associated with higher mortality than were the other 2 surgical options.
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
Permutation tests for joinpoint regression with applications to cancer rates
Kim, H.-J., Fay, M. P., Feuer, E. J., & Midthune, D. N. (2000) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(20000215)19:3<335::aid-sim336>3.0.co;2-z · Cited by 6,318
Fisher, B., Anderson, S., Bryant, J., Margolese, R. G., Deutsch, M., Fisher, E. R., Jeong, J.-H., & Wolmark, N. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa022152 · Cited by 6,249
Veronesi, U., Cascinelli, N., Mariani, L., Greco, M., Saccozzi, R., Luini, A., Aguilar, M., & Marubini, E. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa020989 · Cited by 4,450
Domchek, S. M. (2010) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1237 · Cited by 1,494
A tutorial on propensity score estimation for multiple treatments using generalized boosted models
McCaffrey, D. F., Griffin, B. A., Almirall, D., Slaughter, M. E., Ramchand, R., & Burgette, L. F. (2013) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.5753 · Cited by 1,450
Austin, P. C. (2014) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.5984 · Cited by 1,422
Socioeconomic status and breast cancer incidence in California for different race/ethnic groups
Yost, K., Perkins, C., Cohen, R., Morris, C., & Wright, W. (2001) · Cancer Causes & Control · doi:10.1023/a:1011240019516 · Cited by 965
Efficacy of Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Gene Mutation Carriers
Hartmann, L. C., Sellers, T. A., Schaid, D. J., Frank, T. S., Soderberg, C. L., Sitta, D. L., Frost, M. H., Grant, C. S., Donohue, J. H., Woods, J. E., et al. (2001) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/93.21.1633 · Cited by 743
Tuttle, T. M., Habermann, E. B., Grund, E. H., et al. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2007.12.3141 · Cited by 661
Schnipper, L. E., Smith, T. J., Raghavan, D., Blayney, D. W., Ganz, P. A., Mulvey, T. M., & Wollins, D. S. (2012) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2012.42.8375 · Cited by 649
Cited by
Harbeck, N., & Gnant, M. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31891-8 · Cited by 2,280
Kurian, A. W., Li, Y., Hamilton, A. S., Ward, K. C., Hawley, S. T., Morrow, M., McLeod, M. C., Jagsi, R., & Katz, S. J. (2017) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2016.71.6480 · Cited by 265
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kurian, A. W., Lichtensztajn, D. Y., Keegan, T. H. M., Nelson, D. O., Clarke, C. A., & Gomez, S. L.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2014-09-03
- Volume
- 312
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 902
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2164827483
- Cited by
- 255
- References
- 34
- FWCI
- 11.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Use of and Mortality After Bilateral Mastectomy Compared With Other Surgical Treatments for Breast Cancer in California, 1998-2011. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2014.10707
- The paper
- Kurian, A. W., Lichtensztajn, D. Y., Keegan, T. H. M., Nelson, D. O., Clarke, C. A., & Gomez, S. L. (2014). Use of and Mortality After Bilateral Mastectomy Compared With Other Surgical Treatments for Breast Cancer in California, 1998-2011. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.10707
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.