Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,465

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

Reanalysis and Results after 12 Years of Follow-up in a Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Total Mastectomy with Lumpectomy with or without Irradiation in the Treatment of Breast Cancer

Open access
Fisher, Bernard, Anderson, Stewart, Redmond, Carol K., Wolmark, Norman, Wickerham, D. Lawrence, Cronin, Walter M.·1995·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous findings from a clinical trial (Protocol B-06) conducted by the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) indicated the worth of lumpectomy and breast irradiation for treating breast cancer. After the discovery by NSABP staff members of falsified information on patients enrolled in the study by St. Luc Hospital in Montreal, separate audits were conducted at St. Luc Hospital and other participating institutions. We report the results of both audits and update the study findings through an average of 12 years of follow-up. METHODS: Patients with either negative or positive axillary nodes and tumors 4 cm or less in diameter were randomly assigned to one of three treatments: total mastectomy, lumpectomy followed by breast irradiation, or lumpectomy without irradiation. Three cohorts of patients were analyzed. The first cohort included all 2105 randomized patients, who were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The second cohort consisted of 1851 eligible patients in the first cohort with known nodal status who agreed to be followed and who accepted their assigned therapy (among those excluded were 6 patients from St. Luc Hospital who were declared ineligible because of falsified biopsy dates). The third cohort consisted of the patients in the second cohort minus the 322 eligible patients from St. Luc Hospital (total, 1529 patients). RESULTS: Regardless of the cohort, no significant differences were found in overall survival, disease-free survival, or survival free of disease at distant sites between the patients who underwent total mastectomy and those treated by lumpectomy alone or by lumpectomy plus breast irradiation. After 12 years of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of a recurrence of tumor in the ipsilateral breast was 35 percent in the group treated with lumpectomy alone and 10 percent in the group treated with lumpectomy and breast irradiation (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings continue to indicate that lumpectomy followed by breast irradiation is appropriate therapy for women with either negative or positive axillary nodes and breast tumors 4 cm or less in diameter.

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/nejm199511303332203

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

Cited by

See all 1,465

Metadata

Authors
Fisher, B., Anderson, S., Redmond, C. K., Wolmark, N., Wickerham, D. L., & Cronin, W. M.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1995-11-30
Volume
333
Issue
22
Pages
1456-1461
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2316011039
Cited by
1,465
References
2
FWCI
24.18
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

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.