The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial
Open accessAbstract
Summary Background Sentinel node surgery was designed to minimize side effects of lymph node surgery but still offer outcomes equivalent to axillary dissection. The aims of NSABP Protocol B-32 were to determine whether sentinel node resection in breast cancer patients achieves the same survival and regional control as axillary dissection but with fewer side effects. Methods 5611 women with invasive breast cancer were randomly assigned to sentinel node resection plus axillary dissection (Group 1) or to sentinel node resection alone with axillary dissection only if sentinel nodes were positive (Group 2). Random assignment was done at the NSABP Biostatistical Center and accomplished via using a biased coin minimization approach. Stratification variables were age at entry (≤ 49,≥ 50), clinical tumor size (≤ 2.0 cm, 2.1 – 4 cm, ≥ 4.1 cm), and surgical plan (lumpectomy, mastectomy). Sentinel node resection was done using blue dye and radioactive tracer. As pre-specified in the protocol, analyses of endpoint data were performed according to the randomized group assignments on patients who were assessed at the time of randomization as having pathologically negative sentinel nodes (3989 patients). The endpoint analyses were performed on all such patients who had follow-up information regardless of their eligibility status (3986 patients). The primary endpoint for the study was overall survival. All deaths regardless of cause were included. The mean time on study for the 3986 sentinel node-negative patients with follow-up information was 95.6 months (range: 70.1 – 126.7 months). Findings A total of 309 deaths were reported in the 3986 sentinel node-negative patients with follow-up information. Log-rank comparison of overall survival in Groups 1 and 2 yielded an unadjusted hazard ratio of 1.20 (95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.96 –1.50, P = 0.12). Eight-year Kaplan-Meier estimates for overall survival are 91.8% in Group 1 and 90.3% in Group 2. Treatment comparisons for disease-free survival yielded an unadjusted hazard ratio of 1.05 (95% CI: 0.90 – 1.22, P=0.54). Eight-year Kaplan-Meier estimates for disease-free survival are 82.4% in Group 1 and 81.5% in Group 2. There were 8 regional node recurrences as first events in Group 1 and 14 in Group 2 (P=0.22). Patients are continuing follow up for longer term evaluation of survival and regional control. Interpretation Overall survival, disease-free survival, and regional control were statistically equivalent between groups. When the sentinel node is negative, sentinel node surgery alone with no further axillary dissection is an appropriate, safe, and effective therapy for breast cancer patients with clinically negative lymph nodes.
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
Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations
Kaplan, E. L., & Meier, P. (1992) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_25 · Cited by 45,181
Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations
Kaplan, E. L., & Meier, P. (1958) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452 · Cited by 39,158
Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals
GRAMBSCH, P. M., & THERNEAU, T. M. (1994) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/81.3.515 · Cited by 5,885
A Class of $K$-Sample Tests for Comparing the Cumulative Incidence of a Competing Risk
Gray, R. J. (1988) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1176350951 · Cited by 4,960
A Randomized Comparison of Sentinel-Node Biopsy with Routine Axillary Dissection in Breast Cancer
Veronesi, U., Paganelli, G., Viale, G., Luini, A., Zurrida, S., Galimberti, V., Intra, M., Veronesi, P., Robertson, C., Maisonneuve, P., et al. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa012782 · Cited by 2,210
Fisher, B., Bauer, M., Margolese, R., Poisson, R., Pilch, Y., Redmond, C., Fisher, E., Wolmark, N., Deutsch, M., Montague, E., et al. (1985) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198503143121101 · Cited by 2,194
Self-citationMansel, R. E., Fallowfield, L., Kissin, M., Goyal, A., Newcombe, R. G., Dixon, J. M., Yiangou, C., Horgan, K., Bundred, N., Monypenny, I., et al. (2006) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djj158 · Cited by 1,679
A General Definition of Residuals
Cox, D. R., & Snell, E. J. (1968) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1968.tb00724.x · Cited by 1,311
Krag, D. N., Anderson, S. J., Julian, T. B., Brown, A. M., Harlow, S. P., Ashikaga, T., Weaver, D. L., Miller, B. J., Jalovec, L. M., Frazier, T. G., et al. (2007) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(07)70278-4 · Cited by 1,060
Self-citationLucci, A., McCall, L. M., Beitsch, P. D., Whitworth, P. W., Reintgen, D. S., Blumencranz, P. W., Leitch, A. M., Saha, S., Hunt, K. K., & Giuliano, A. E. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2006.07.4062 · Cited by 920
Cited by
Harbeck, N., Penault-Llorca, F., Cortes, J., Gnant, M., Houssami, N., Poortmans, P., Ruddy, K., Tsang, J., & Cardoso, F. (2019) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-019-0111-2 · Cited by 3,024
Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up
Cardoso, F., Kyriakides, S., Ohno, S., Penault-Llorca, F., Poortmans, P., Rubio, I. T., Zackrisson, S., & Senkus, E. (2019) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz173 · Cited by 2,214
Runowicz, C. D., Leach, C. R., Henry, N. L., Henry, K. S., Mackey, H. T., Cowens-Alvarado, R. L., Cannady, R. S., Pratt-Chapman, M. L., Edge, S. B., Jacobs, L. A., et al. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2015.64.3809 · Cited by 1,071
Runowicz, C. D., Leach, C. R., Henry, N. L., Henry, K. S., Mackey, H. T., Cowens‐Alvarado, R. L., Cannady, R. S., Pratt‐Chapman, M. L., Edge, S. B., Jacobs, L. A., et al. (2016) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21319 · Cited by 728
Effect of Occult Metastases on Survival in Node-Negative Breast Cancer
Weaver, D. L., Ashikaga, T., Krag, D. N., Skelly, J. M., Anderson, S. J., Harlow, S. P., Julian, T. B., Mamounas, E. P., & Wolmark, N. (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1008108 · Cited by 435
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Krag, D. N., Anderson, S. J., Julian, T. B., Brown, A. M., Harlow, S. P., Costantino, J. P., Ashikaga, T., Weaver, D. L., Mamounas, E. P., Jalovec, L. M., Frazier, T. G., Noyes, R. D., Robidoux, A., Scarth, H. M., & Wolmark, N.
- Venue
- The Lancet Oncology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-10
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 927-933
- ISSN
- 1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2131719808
- Cited by
- 1,920
- References
- 22
- FWCI
- 25.29
- 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: Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70207-2
- The paper
- Krag, D. N., Anderson, S. J., Julian, T. B., Brown, A. M., Harlow, S. P., Costantino, J. P., Ashikaga, T., Weaver, D. L., Mamounas, E. P., Jalovec, L. M., Frazier, T. G., Noyes, R. D., Robidoux, A., Scarth, H. M., & Wolmark, N. (2010). Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial. The Lancet Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70207-2
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.