The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Geographic Variation in the Treatment of Localized Breast Cancer
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Breast-conserving surgery followed by radiation therapy is as effective as modified radical mastectomy in treating women with localized breast cancer, as demonstrated by clinical trials reported during the 1980s. The extent to which breast-conserving surgery has been adopted in various regions of the United States is not known. METHODS: We assessed variations in the use of breast-conserving surgery from 1983 to 1986 in 18,399 non-Hispanic white, 324 Hispanic, and 1174 black women with breast cancer in nine areas of the United States, using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results Program of the National Cancer Institute. RESULTS: The proportion of white women with localized breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery ranged from 9.2 percent (Iowa) to 32.1 percent (Seattle) in 1983-1984 and from 19.6 percent (Iowa) to 41.5 percent (Seattle) in 1985-1986. Between 1983 and 1986, the use of breast-conserving surgery increased in each area, but the relative rankings of the areas changed little. The frequency of the use of breast-conserving surgery in black and Hispanic women was comparable to that in white women. The proportion of women who received radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery also varied geographically and increased from 1983 to 1986 in all areas. Older women in all areas and black women in Atlanta and Detroit were less likely than other women to receive radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery. CONCLUSIONS: There is marked variation in the United States in the use of breast-conserving surgery for localized breast cancer. The variation is not explained by demographic factors, although race and age affect the use of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery.
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
Cited by
Levine, R. S., Foster, J. E., Fullilove, R. E., Fullilove, M. T., Briggs, N. C., Hull, P. C., Husaini, B. A., & Hennekens, C. H. (2001) · Public Health Reports® · doi:10.1093/phr/116.5.474 · Cited by 262
Unmet psychosocial needs of Pennsylvanians with cancer: 1986–2005
Barg, F. K., Cronholm, P. F., Straton, J. B., Keddem, S., Knott, K., Grater, J., Houts, P., & Palmer, S. C. (2007) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.22820 · Cited by 84
Metadata
- Authors
- Farrow, D. C., Hunt, W. C., & Samet, J. M.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1992-04-23
- Volume
- 326
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 1097-1101
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2338469664
- Cited by
- 477
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Geographic Variation in the Treatment of Localized Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199204233261701
- The paper
- Farrow, D. C., Hunt, W. C., & Samet, J. M. (1992). Geographic Variation in the Treatment of Localized Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199204233261701
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.