Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 290

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board

Open access
Newman, Erika A., Guest, Amy B., Helvie, Mark A., Roubidoux, Marilyn A, Chang, Alfred E., Kleer, Celina G., Diehl, Kathleen M., Cimmino, Vincent M., Pierce, Lori, Hayes, Daniel, Newman, Lisa A., Sabel, Michael S.·2006·Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The treatment of breast cancer requires a multidisciplinary approach, and patients are often referred to a multidisciplinary cancer clinic. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the impact of this approach on the surgical management of breast cancer. METHODS: The medical records of 149 consecutive patients referred to a multidisciplinary breast cancer clinic over a 1‐year period with a diagnosis of breast cancer were reviewed retrospectively for alterations in radiologic, pathologic, surgical, and medical interpretations and the effect that these alterations had on recommendations for surgical management. RESULTS: A review of the imaging studies resulted in changes in interpretations in 67 of the 149 patients studied (45%). This resulted in a change in surgical management in 11% of patients. Review of the pathology resulted in changes in the interpretation for 43 of the 149 patients (29%). Thirteen patients (9%) had surgical management changes made solely as a result of pathologic reinterpretation. In 51 patients (34%), a change in surgical management was recommended after discussion with the surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists that was not based on reinterpretation of the radiologic or pathologic findings. Overall, a second evaluation of patients referred to a multidisciplinary tumor board led to changes in the recommendations for surgical management in 77 of 149 of those patients studied (52%). CONCLUSIONS: The changes in management stemmed from differences in mammographic interpretation, pathologic interpretation, and evaluation by medical and radiation oncologists and surgical breast specialists. Multidisciplinary review can provide patients with useful additional information when making difficult treatment decisions. Cancer 2006. © 2006 American Cancer Society.

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 · 10.1002/cncr.22266

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 290

Metadata

Authors
Newman, E. A., Guest, A. B., Helvie, M. A., Roubidoux, M. A., Chang, A. E., Kleer, C. G., Diehl, K. M., Cimmino, V. M., Pierce, L., Hayes, D., Newman, L. A., & Sabel, M. S.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-11-08
Volume
107
Issue
10
Pages
2346-2351
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
OpenAlex
W2130668936
Cited by
290
References
7
FWCI
3.43
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: Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.22266
The paper
Newman, E. A., Guest, A. B., Helvie, M. A., Roubidoux, M. A., Chang, A. E., Kleer, C. G., Diehl, K. M., Cimmino, V. M., Pierce, L., Hayes, D., Newman, L. A., & Sabel, M. S. (2006). Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22266

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.