Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,400

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

Twenty-Five-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Trial Comparing Radical Mastectomy, Total Mastectomy, and Total Mastectomy Followed by Irradiation

Open access
Fisher, Bernard, Jeong, Jong-Hyeon, Anderson, Stewart, Bryant, John, Fisher, Edwin R., Wolmark, Norman·2002·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In women with breast cancer, the role of radical mastectomy, as compared with less extensive surgery, has been a matter of debate. We report 25-year findings of a randomized trial initiated in 1971 to determine whether less extensive surgery with or without radiation therapy was as effective as the Halsted radical mastectomy. METHODS: A total of 1079 women with clinically negative axillary nodes underwent radical mastectomy, total mastectomy without axillary dissection but with postoperative irradiation, or total mastectomy plus axillary dissection only if their nodes became positive. A total of 586 women with clinically positive axillary nodes either underwent radical mastectomy or underwent total mastectomy without axillary dissection but with postoperative irradiation. Kaplan-Meier and cumulative-incidence estimates of outcome were obtained. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed among the three groups of women with negative nodes or between the two groups of women with positive nodes with respect to disease-free survival, relapse-free survival, distant-disease-free survival, or overall survival. Among women with negative nodes, the hazard ratio for death among those who were treated with total mastectomy and radiation as compared with those who underwent radical mastectomy was 1.08 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.28; P=0.38), and the hazard ratio for death among those who had total mastectomy without radiation as compared with those who underwent radical mastectomy was 1.03 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.87 to 1.23; P=0.72). Among women with positive nodes, the hazard ratio for death among those who underwent total mastectomy and radiation as compared with those who underwent radical mastectomy was 1.06 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.89 to 1.27; P=0.49). CONCLUSIONS: The findings validate earlier results showing no advantage from radical mastectomy. Although differences of a few percentage points cannot be excluded, the findings fail to show a significant survival advantage from removing occult positive nodes at the time of initial surgery or from radiation therapy.

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/nejmoa020128

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,400

Metadata

Authors
Fisher, B., Jeong, J.-H., Anderson, S., Bryant, J., Fisher, E. R., & Wolmark, N.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2002-08-22
Volume
347
Issue
8
Pages
567-575
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W1986993149
Cited by
1,400
References
2
FWCI
15.29
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: Twenty-Five-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Trial Comparing Radical Mastectomy, Total Mastectomy, and Total Mastectomy Followed by Irradiation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa020128
The paper
Fisher, B., Jeong, J.-H., Anderson, S., Bryant, J., Fisher, E. R., & Wolmark, N. (2002). Twenty-Five-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Trial Comparing Radical Mastectomy, Total Mastectomy, and Total Mastectomy Followed by Irradiation. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa020128

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.