Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 165

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

MRI detection of distinct incidental cancer in women with primary breast cancer studied in IBMC 6883

Schnall, Mitchell D., Blume, Jeffery, Bluemke, David A., DeAngelis, Gia A., DeBruhl, Nanette, Harms, Steven, Heywang-Köbrunner, Sylvia H., Hylton, Nola, Kuhl, Christiane K., Pisano, Etta D., Causer, Petrina, Schnitt, Stuart J., Smazal, Stanley F., Stelling, Carol B., Lehman, Constance, Weatherall, Paul T., Gatsonis, Constantine A.·2005·Journal of Surgical Oncology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prior single institution studies suggest MRI may improve the assessment of the extent of cancer within the breast, and thus reduce the risk of leaving macroscopic disease in the breast following breast conservation therapy. We report on the rate of MRI and mammography detection of foci of distinct incidental cancer in a prospective, multi center trial involving 426 women with confirmed breast cancer at 15 institutions in the US, Canada, and Germany. METHODS: Women underwent mammography and MRI prior to biopsy of the suspicious index lesion. Additional incidental lesions (IL) greater than 2 cm from the index lesion that were detected by mammography and MRI were noted and characterized. Biopsy recommendations were associated with ILs given an assessment of suspicious or highly suspicous (BiRads 4 and 5). These assessments were considered a positive test. RESULTS: MRI had a significantly higher yield of confirmed cancer ILs than mammography (0.18 (95%CI: 0.142-0.214) for MRI versus 0.072 (95%CI: 0.050-0.100) for mammography). The cancer ILs detected by MRI alone appeared to be similar to those detected by mammography with respect to size and histology. The percentage of biopsies of ILs that resulted in a cancer diagnosis was similar between the modalities (MRI 0.72(95%CI: 0.6-0.81); Mammography 0.85 (95%CI: 0.62-0.96)). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that consideration needs to be given regarding the integration of breast MRI into the pretreatment evaluation of women seeking breast conservation therapy.

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/jso.20381

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 165

Metadata

Authors
Schnall, M. D., Blume, J., Bluemke, D. A., DeAngelis, G. A., DeBruhl, N., Harms, S., Heywang-Köbrunner, S. H., Hylton, N., Kuhl, C. K., Pisano, E. D., Causer, P., Schnitt, S. J., Smazal, S. F., Stelling, C. B., Lehman, C., Weatherall, P. T., & Gatsonis, C. A.
Venue
Journal of Surgical Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005
Volume
92
Issue
1
Pages
32-38
ISSN
  • 0022-4790 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9098
OpenAlex
W2042715737
Cited by
165
References
5
FWCI
6.43
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: MRI detection of distinct incidental cancer in women with primary breast cancer studied in IBMC 6883. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jso.20381
The paper
Schnall, M. D., Blume, J., Bluemke, D. A., DeAngelis, G. A., DeBruhl, N., Harms, S., Heywang-Köbrunner, S. H., Hylton, N., Kuhl, C. K., Pisano, E. D., Causer, P., Schnitt, S. J., Smazal, S. F., Stelling, C. B., Lehman, C., Weatherall, P. T., & Gatsonis, C. A. (2005). MRI detection of distinct incidental cancer in women with primary breast cancer studied in IBMC 6883. Journal of Surgical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.20381

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.