Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,871

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial

Open access
Donker, Mila, van Tienhoven, Geertjan, Straver, Marieke E, Meijnen, Philip, van de Velde, Cornelis J H, Mansel, Robert E, Cataliotti, Luigi, Westenberg, A Helen, Klinkenbijl, Jean H G, Orzalesi, Lorenzo, Bouma, Willem H, van der Mijle, Huub C J, Nieuwenhuijzen, Grard A P, Veltkamp, Sanne C, Slaets, Leen, Duez, Nicole J, de Graaf, Peter W, van Dalen, Thijs, Marinelli, Andreas, Rijna, Herman, Snoj, Marko, Bundred, Nigel J, Merkus, Jos W S, Belkacemi, Yazid, Petignat, Patrick, Schinagl, Dominic A X, Coens, Corneel, Messina, Carlo G M, Bogaerts, Jan, Rutgers, Emiel J T·2014·The Lancet Oncology

Abstract

Summary Background If treatment of the axilla is indicated in patients with breast cancer who have a positive sentinel node, axillary lymph node dissection is the present standard. Although axillary lymph node dissection provides excellent regional control, it is associated with harmful side-effects. We aimed to assess whether axillary radiotherapy provides comparable regional control with fewer side-effects. Methods Patients with T1–2 primary breast cancer and no palpable lymphadenopathy were enrolled in the randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive either axillary lymph node dissection or axillary radiotherapy in case of a positive sentinel node, stratified by institution. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of 5-year axillary recurrence, considered to be not more than 4% for the axillary radiotherapy group compared with an expected 2% in the axillary lymph node dissection group. Analyses were by intention to treat and per protocol. The AMAROS trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00014612. Findings Between Feb 19, 2001, and April 29, 2010, 4823 patients were enrolled at 34 centres from nine European countries, of whom 4806 were eligible for randomisation. 2402 patients were randomly assigned to receive axillary lymph node dissection and 2404 to receive axillary radiotherapy. Of the 1425 patients with a positive sentinel node, 744 had been randomly assigned to axillary lymph node dissection and 681 to axillary radiotherapy; these patients constituted the intention-to-treat population. Median follow-up was 6·1 years (IQR 4·1–8·0) for the patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes. In the axillary lymph node dissection group, 220 (33%) of 672 patients who underwent axillary lymph node dissection had additional positive nodes. Axillary recurrence occurred in four of 744 patients in the axillary lymph node dissection group and seven of 681 in the axillary radiotherapy group. 5-year axillary recurrence was 0·43% (95% CI 0·00–0·92) after axillary lymph node dissection versus 1·19% (0·31–2·08) after axillary radiotherapy. The planned non-inferiority test was underpowered because of the low number of events. The one-sided 95% CI for the underpowered non-inferiority test on the hazard ratio was 0·00–5·27, with a non-inferiority margin of 2. Lymphoedema in the ipsilateral arm was noted significantly more often after axillary lymph node dissection than after axillary radiotherapy at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years. Interpretation Axillary lymph node dissection and axillary radiotherapy after a positive sentinel node provide excellent and comparable axillary control for patients with T1–2 primary breast cancer and no palpable lymphadenopathy. Axillary radiotherapy results in significantly less morbidity. Funding EORTC Charitable Trust.

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 · 10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70460-7

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 1,871

Metadata

Authors
Donker, M., van Tienhoven, G., Straver, M. E., Meijnen, P., van de Velde, C. J. H., Mansel, R. E., Cataliotti, L., Westenberg, A. H., Klinkenbijl, J. H. G., Orzalesi, L., Bouma, W. H., van der Mijle, H. C. J., Nieuwenhuijzen, G. A. P., Veltkamp, S. C., Slaets, L., Duez, N. J., de Graaf, P. W., van Dalen, T., Marinelli, A., Rijna, H., Snoj, M., Bundred, N. J., Merkus, J. W. S., Belkacemi, Y., Petignat, P., Schinagl, D. A. X., Coens, C., Messina, C. G. M., Bogaerts, J., & Rutgers, E. J. T.
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-11
Volume
15
Issue
12
Pages
1303-1310
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2133865595
Cited by
1,871
References
0
FWCI
35.86
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: Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70460-7
The paper
Donker, M., van Tienhoven, G., Straver, M. E., Meijnen, P., van de Velde, C. J. H., Mansel, R. E., Cataliotti, L., Westenberg, A. H., Klinkenbijl, J. H. G., Orzalesi, L., Bouma, W. H., van der Mijle, H. C. J., Nieuwenhuijzen, G. A. P., Veltkamp, S. C., Slaets, L., Duez, N. J., de Graaf, P. W., van Dalen, T., Marinelli, A., . . . Rutgers, E. J. T. (2014). Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. The Lancet Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70460-7

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.