Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 827

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lumpectomy Compared with Lumpectomy and Radiation Therapy for the Treatment of Intraductal Breast Cancer

Fisher, Bernard, Costantino, Joseph, Redmond, Carol, Fisher, Edwin, Margolese, Richard, Dimitrov, Nikolay, Wolmark, Norman, Wickerham, D. Lawrence, Deutsch, Melvin, Ore, Liora, Mamounas, Eleftherios, Poller, William, Kavanah, Maureen·1993·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: Women with ductal carcinoma in situ have been treated both by lumpectomy and by lumpectomy followed by radiation therapy, but the benefit of combined therapy is uncertain. A group of 818 women with ductal carcinoma in situ were randomly assigned to undergo lumpectomy or lumpectomy followed by breast irradiation (50 Gy). Sufficient tissue was removed that the margins of the resected specimens were histologically tumor-free. The mean duration of follow-up was 43 months (range, 11 to 86). The principal end point of the study was event-free survival, as defined by the presence of no new ipsilateral or contralateral breast cancers, regional or distant metastases, or other cancers and by no deaths from causes other than cancer. RESULTS: Five-year event-free survival was better in the women who received breast irradiation (84.4 percent, vs. 73.8 percent for the women treated by lumpectomy alone; P = 0.001). The improvement was due to a reduction in the occurrence of second ipsilateral breast cancers; the incidence of each of the other events was similar in the two groups. Of 391 women treated by lumpectomy alone, ipsilateral breast cancer developed in 64 (16.4 percent); it was noninvasive in 32 and invasive in the remaining 32. Of 399 women treated with lumpectomy and breast irradiation, ipsilateral breast cancer developed in 28 (7.0 percent) (noninvasive in 20 and invasive in 8). The five-year cumulative incidence of second cancers in the ipsilateral breast was reduced by irradiation from 10.4 percent to 7.5 percent for noninvasive cancers and from 10.5 percent to 2.9 percent for invasive cancers (P = 0.055 and P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Breast irradiation after lumpectomy is more appropriate than lumpectomy alone for women with localized ductal carcinoma in situ.

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/nejm199306033282201

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 827

Metadata

Authors
Fisher, B., Costantino, J., Redmond, C., Fisher, E., Margolese, R., Dimitrov, N., Wolmark, N., Wickerham, D. L., Deutsch, M., Ore, L., Mamounas, E., Poller, W., & Kavanah, M.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1993-06-03
Volume
328
Issue
22
Pages
1581-1586
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2318327263
Cited by
827
References
3
FWCI
22.05
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Lumpectomy Compared with Lumpectomy and Radiation Therapy for the Treatment of Intraductal Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199306033282201
The paper
Fisher, B., Costantino, J., Redmond, C., Fisher, E., Margolese, R., Dimitrov, N., Wolmark, N., Wickerham, D. L., Deutsch, M., Ore, L., Mamounas, E., Poller, W., & Kavanah, M. (1993). Lumpectomy Compared with Lumpectomy and Radiation Therapy for the Treatment of Intraductal Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199306033282201

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.