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; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prophylactic Oophorectomy in Carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutations

Rebbeck, Timothy R., Lynch, Henry T., Neuhausen, Susan L., Narod, Steven A., van't Veer, Laura, Garber, Judy E., Evans, Gareth, Isaacs, Claudine, Daly, Mary B., Matloff, Ellen, Olopade, Olufunmilayo I., Weber, Barbara L.·2002·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Data concerning the efficacy of bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy for reducing the risk of gynecologic cancer in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations are limited. We investigated whether this procedure reduces the risk of cancers of the coelomic epithelium and breast in women who carry such mutations. METHODS: A total of 551 women with disease-associated germ-line BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations were identified from registries and studied for the occurrence of ovarian and breast cancer. We determined the incidence of ovarian cancer in 259 women who had undergone bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and in 292 matched controls who had not undergone the procedure. In a subgroup of 241 women with no history of breast cancer or prophylactic mastectomy, the incidence of breast cancer was determined in 99 women who had undergone bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and in 142 matched controls. The length of postoperative follow-up for both groups was at least eight years. RESULTS: Six women who underwent prophylactic oophorectomy (2.3 percent) received a diagnosis of stage I ovarian cancer at the time of the procedure; two women (0.8 percent) received a diagnosis of papillary serous peritoneal carcinoma 3.8 and 8.6 years after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy. Among the controls, 58 women (19.9 percent) received a diagnosis of ovarian cancer, after a mean follow-up of 8.8 years. With the exclusion of the six women whose cancer was diagnosed at surgery, prophylactic oophorectomy significantly reduced the risk of coelomic epithelial cancer (hazard ratio, 0.04; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.01 to 0.16). Of 99 women who underwent bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and who were studied to determine the risk of breast cancer, breast cancer developed in 21 (21.2 percent), as compared with 60 (42.3 percent) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy reduces the risk of coelomic epithelial cancer and breast cancer in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

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/nejmoa012158

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 1,465

Metadata

Authors
Rebbeck, T. R., Lynch, H. T., Neuhausen, S. L., Narod, S. A., van't Veer, L., Garber, J. E., Evans, G., Isaacs, C., Daly, M. B., Matloff, E., Olopade, O. I., & Weber, B. L.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2002-05-23
Volume
346
Issue
21
Pages
1616-1622
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2038793520
Cited by
1,465
References
1
FWCI
54.20
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: Prophylactic Oophorectomy in Carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa012158
The paper
Rebbeck, T. R., Lynch, H. T., Neuhausen, S. L., Narod, S. A., van't Veer, L., Garber, J. E., Evans, G., Isaacs, C., Daly, M. B., Matloff, E., Olopade, O. I., & Weber, B. L. (2002). Prophylactic Oophorectomy in Carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutations. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa012158

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.