Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,599

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparing Radical Mastectomy with Quadrantectomy, Axillary Dissection, and Radiotherapy in Patients with Small Cancers of the Breast

Veronesi, Umberto, Saccozzi, Roberto, Del Vecchio, Marcella, Banfi, Alberto, Clemente, Claudio, De Lena, Mario, Gallus, Giuseppe, Greco, Marco, Luini, Alberto, Marubini, Ettore, Muscolino, Giuseppe, Rilke, Franco, Salvadori, Bruno, Zecchini, Annamaria, Zucali, Roberto·1981·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

From 1973 to 1980, we carried out a controlled study at the National Cancer Institute in Milan to consider the value of a conservative procedure in patients with breast cancer of small size. We randomized 701 patients with breast cancer measuring less than 2 cm in diameter and with no palpable axillary lymph nodes to Halsted radical mastectomy or to "quadrantectomy" with axillary dissection and radiotherapy to the ipsilateral residual breast tissue. We treated 349 patients with Halsted mastectomy and 352 with quadrantectomy. The two groups were comparable in age distribution, size and site of primary tumor, menopausal status, and frequency of axillary metastases. There were three local recurrences in the Halsted group and one in the quadrantectomy group. Actuarial curves showed no difference between the two groups in disease-free or overall survival. From these results, mastectomy appears to involve unnecessary mutilation in patients with breast cancer of less than 2 cm and no palpable axillary 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm198107023050102

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. 10.1038/bjc.1977.1 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Fisher, 1978, Semin Oncol, 5, 385
  3. 10.1016/S0140-6736(79)90185-5 · DOI
  4. Veronesi, 1978, Semin Oncol, 5, 395
  5. Crile, 1954, Surg Gynecol Obstet, 118, 517
  6. Crile, 1973, Surg Gynecol Obstet, 136, 929
  7. 10.1002/bjs.1800580302 · DOI
  8. 10.1097/00000658-197109000-00008 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/0360-3016(80)90198-4 · DOI
  10. Baclesse, 1960, J Radiol Electrol Med Nucl, 41, 137
  11. 10.1016/S0009-9260(72)80151-X · DOI
  12. 10.1259/0007-1285-42-498-423 · DOI
  13. Rissanen, 1974, Strahlentherapie, 147, 370
  14. Calle, 1976, Recent Results Cancer Res, 57, 164
  15. 10.1001/jama.200.2.134 · DOI
  16. 10.2214/ajr.127.4.645 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/0360-3016(80)90197-2 · DOI
  18. Harris, 1978, Cancer Treat Rep, 62, 985
  19. Bedwinek, 1980, Cancer Clin Trials, 3, 11
  20. 10.1136/bmj.2.5811.423 · DOI
  21. 10.1002/1097-0142(197706)39:6<2827::AID-CNCR2820390671>3.0.CO;2-I · DOI
  22. 10.1002/1097-0142(19800815)46:4+<1009::AID-CNCR2820461326>3.0.CO;2-H · DOI
  23. 10.1002/1097-0142(19810101)47:1<170::AID-CNCR2820470128>3.0.CO;2-C · DOI
  24. 10.1056/NEJM198101013040103 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Veronesi, U., Saccozzi, R., Del Vecchio, M., Banfi, A., Clemente, C., De Lena, M., Gallus, G., Greco, M., Luini, A., Marubini, E., Muscolino, G., Rilke, F., Salvadori, B., Zecchini, A., & Zucali, R.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1981-07-02
Volume
305
Issue
1
Pages
6-11
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2396940271
Cited by
1,599
References
0
FWCI
23.15
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

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.