The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Randomized Comparison of Sentinel-Node Biopsy with Routine Axillary Dissection in Breast Cancer
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Although numerous studies have shown that the status of the sentinel node is an accurate predictor of the status of the axillary nodes in breast cancer, the efficacy and safety of sentinel-node biopsy require validation. METHODS: From March 1998 to December 1999, we randomly assigned 516 patients with primary breast cancer in whom the tumor was less than or equal to 2 cm in diameter either to sentinel-node biopsy and total axillary dissection (the axillary-dissection group) or to sentinel-node biopsy followed by axillary dissection only if the sentinel node contained metastases (the sentinel-node group). RESULTS: The number of sentinel nodes found was the same in the two groups. A sentinel node was positive in 83 of the 257 patients in the axillary-dissection group (32.3 percent), and in 92 of the 259 patients in the sentinel-node group (35.5 percent). In the axillary-dissection group, the overall accuracy of the sentinel-node status was 96.9 percent, the sensitivity 91.2 percent, and the specificity 100 percent. There was less pain and better arm mobility in the patients who underwent sentinel-node biopsy only than in those who also underwent axillary dissection. There were 15 events associated with breast cancer in the axillary-dissection group and 10 such events in the sentinel-node group. Among the 167 patients who did not undergo axillary dissection, there were no cases of overt axillary metastasis during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Sentinel-node biopsy is a safe and accurate method of screening the axillary nodes for metastasis in women with a small 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.
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
Harbeck, N., Penault-Llorca, F., Cortes, J., Gnant, M., Houssami, N., Poortmans, P., Ruddy, K., Tsang, J., & Cardoso, F. (2019) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-019-0111-2 · Cited by 3,024
Krag, D. N., Anderson, S. J., Julian, T. B., Brown, A. M., Harlow, S. P., Costantino, J. P., Ashikaga, T., Weaver, D. L., Mamounas, E. P., Jalovec, L. M., et al. (2010) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70207-2 · Cited by 1,920
Wilke, L. G., McCall, L. M., Posther, K. E., Whitworth, P. W., Reintgen, D. S., Leitch, A. M., Gabram, S. G. A., Lucci, A., Cox, C. E., Hunt, K. K., et al. (2006) · Annals of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1245/aso.2006.05.013 · Cited by 580
Andersen, K. G., & Kehlet, H. (2011) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2010.12.005 · Cited by 523
Fleissig, A., Fallowfield, L. J., Langridge, C. I., Johnson, L., Newcombe, R. G., Dixon, J. M., Kissin, M., & Mansel, R. E. (2006) · Breast Cancer Research and Treatment · doi:10.1007/s10549-005-9025-7 · Cited by 494
Metadata
- Authors
- Veronesi, U., Paganelli, G., Viale, G., Luini, A., Zurrida, S., Galimberti, V., Intra, M., Veronesi, P., Robertson, C., Maisonneuve, P., Renne, G., De Cicco, C., De Lucia, F., & Gennari, R.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2003-08-07
- Volume
- 349
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 546-553
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2115527491
- Cited by
- 2,210
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 41.85
- 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: A Randomized Comparison of Sentinel-Node Biopsy with Routine Axillary Dissection in Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa012782
- The paper
- Veronesi, U., Paganelli, G., Viale, G., Luini, A., Zurrida, S., Galimberti, V., Intra, M., Veronesi, P., Robertson, C., Maisonneuve, P., Renne, G., De Cicco, C., De Lucia, F., & Gennari, R. (2003). A Randomized Comparison of Sentinel-Node Biopsy with Routine Axillary Dissection in Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa012782
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.
