Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,423

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

Efficacy of Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in Women with a Family History of Breast Cancer

Hartmann, Lynn C., Schaid, Daniel J., Woods, John E., Crotty, Thomas P., Myers, Jeffrey L., Arnold, P.G., Petty, Paul M., Sellers, Thomas A., Johnson, Joanne L., McDonnell, Shannon K., Frost, Marlene H., Grant, Clive S., Michels, Virginia V., Jenkins, Robert B.·1999·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Options for women at high risk for breast cancer include surveillance, chemoprevention, and prophylactic mastectomy. The data on the outcomes for surveillance and prophylactic mastectomy are incomplete. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of all women with a family history of breast cancer who underwent bilateral prophylactic mastectomy at the Mayo Clinic between 1960 and 1993. The women were divided into two groups - high risk and moderate risk - on the basis of family history. A control study of the sisters of the high-risk probands and the Gail model were used to predict the number of breast cancers expected in these two groups in the absence of prophylactic mastectomy. RESULTS: We identified 639 women with a family history of breast cancer who had undergone bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: 214 at high risk and 425 at moderate risk. The median length of follow-up was 14 years. The median age at prophylactic mastectomy was 42 years. According to the Gall model, 37.4 breast cancers were expected in the moderate-risk group; 4 breast cancers occurred (reduction in risk, 89.5 percent; P<0.001). We compared the numbers of breast cancers among the 214 high-risk probands with the numbers among their 403 sisters who had not undergone prophylactic mastectomy. Of these sisters, 38.7 percent (156) had been given a diagnosis of breast cancer (115 cases were diagnosed before the respective proband's prophylactic mastectomy, 38 were diagnosed afterward, and the time of the diagnosis was unknown in 3 cases). By contrast, breast cancer was diagnosed in 1.4 percent (3 of 214) of the probands. Thus, prophylactic mastectomy was associated with a reduction in the incidence of breast cancer of at least 90 percent. CONCLUSIONS: In women with a high risk of breast cancer on the basis of family history, prophylactic mastectomy can significantly reduce the incidence of 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/nejm199901143400201

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 1,423

Metadata

Authors
Hartmann, L. C., Schaid, D. J., Woods, J. E., Crotty, T. P., Myers, J. L., Arnold, P. G., Petty, P. M., Sellers, T. A., Johnson, J. L., McDonnell, S. K., Frost, M. H., Grant, C. S., Michels, V. V., & Jenkins, R. B.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1999-01-14
Volume
340
Issue
2
Pages
77-84
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2312752082
Cited by
1,423
References
3
FWCI
55.72
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: Efficacy of Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in Women with a Family History of Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199901143400201
The paper
Hartmann, L. C., Schaid, D. J., Woods, J. E., Crotty, T. P., Myers, J. L., Arnold, P. G., Petty, P. M., Sellers, T. A., Johnson, J. L., McDonnell, S. K., Frost, M. H., Grant, C. S., Michels, V. V., & Jenkins, R. B. (1999). Efficacy of Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in Women with a Family History of Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199901143400201

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.