Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,376

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ten-Year Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Radical Mastectomy and Total Mastectomy with or without Radiation

Fisher, Bernard, Redmond, Carol, Fisher, Edwin R., Bauer, Madeline, Wolmark, Norman, Wickerham, D. Lawrence, Deutsch, Melvin, Montague, Eleanor, Margolese, Richard, Foster, Roger·1985·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

In 1971 we began a randomized trial to compare alternative local and regional treatments of breast cancer, all of which employ breast removal. Life-table estimates were obtained for 1665 women enrolled in the study for a mean of 126 months. There were no significant differences among three groups of patients with clinically negative axillary nodes, with respect to disease-free survival, distant-disease--free survival, or overall survival (about 57 per cent) at 10 years. The patients were treated by radical mastectomy, total ("simple") mastectomy without axillary dissection but with regional irradiation, or total mastectomy without irradiation plus axillary dissection only if nodes were subsequently positive. Similarly, no differences were observed between patients with clinically positive nodes treated by radical mastectomy or by total mastectomy without axillary dissection but with regional irradiation. Survival at 10 years was about 38 per cent in both groups. Our findings indicate that the location of a breast tumor does not influence the prognosis and that irradiation of internal mammary nodes in patients with inner-quadrant lesions does not improve survival. The data also demonstrate that the results obtained at five years accurately predict the outcome at 10 years. We conclude that the variations of local and regional treatment used in this study are not important in determining survival of patients with breast cancer.

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/nejm198503143121102

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Fisher, B., Redmond, C., Fisher, E. R., Bauer, M., Wolmark, N., Wickerham, D. L., Deutsch, M., Montague, E., Margolese, R., & Foster, R.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1985-03-14
Volume
312
Issue
11
Pages
674-681
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2038660160
Cited by
1,376
References
2
FWCI
24.47
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.