The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Long-Term Results of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal fractionation schedule for whole-breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a study to determine whether a hypofractionated 3-week schedule of whole-breast irradiation is as effective as a 5-week schedule. Women with invasive breast cancer who had undergone breast-conserving surgery and in whom resection margins were clear and axillary lymph nodes were negative were randomly assigned to receive whole-breast irradiation either at a standard dose of 50.0 Gy in 25 fractions over a period of 35 days (the control group) or at a dose of 42.5 Gy in 16 fractions over a period of 22 days (the hypofractionated-radiation group). RESULTS: The risk of local recurrence at 10 years was 6.7% among the 612 women assigned to standard irradiation as compared with 6.2% among the 622 women assigned to the hypofractionated regimen (absolute difference, 0.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.5 to 3.5). At 10 years, 71.3% of women in the control group as compared with 69.8% of the women in the hypofractionated-radiation group had a good or excellent cosmetic outcome (absolute difference, 1.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -6.9 to 9.8). CONCLUSIONS: Ten years after treatment, accelerated, hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation was not inferior to standard radiation treatment in women who had undergone breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer with clear surgical margins and negative axillary nodes. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00156052.)
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
Cites
Fisher, B., Anderson, S., Bryant, J., Margolese, R. G., Deutsch, M., Fisher, E. R., Jeong, J.-H., & Wolmark, N. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa022152 · Cited by 6,249
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
Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up
Cardoso, F., Kyriakides, S., Ohno, S., Penault-Llorca, F., Poortmans, P., Rubio, I. T., Zackrisson, S., & Senkus, E. (2019) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz173 · Cited by 2,214
Loibl, S., Poortmans, P., Morrow, M., Denkert, C., & Curigliano, G. (2021) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)32381-3 · Cited by 1,648
Murray Brunt, A., Haviland, J. S., Wheatley, D. A., Sydenham, M. A., Alhasso, A., Bloomfield, D. J., Chan, C., Churn, M., Cleator, S., Coles, C. E., et al. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30932-6 · Cited by 1,084
Self-citationBiganzoli, L., Wildiers, H., Oakman, C., Marotti, L., Loibl, S., Kunkler, I., Reed, M., Ciatto, S., Voogd, A. C., Brain, E., et al. (2012) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(11)70383-7 · Cited by 567
Metadata
- Authors
- Whelan, T. J., Pignol, J.-P., Levine, M. N., Julian, J. A., MacKenzie, R., Parpia, S., Shelley, W., Grimard, L., Bowen, J., Lukka, H., Perera, F., Fyles, A., Schneider, K., Gulavita, S., & Freeman, C.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2010-02-11
- Volume
- 362
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 513-520
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2103608035
- Cited by
- 1,878
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 28.18
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Long-Term Results of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa0906260
- The paper
- Whelan, T. J., Pignol, J.-P., Levine, M. N., Julian, J. A., MacKenzie, R., Parpia, S., Shelley, W., Grimard, L., Bowen, J., Lukka, H., Perera, F., Fyles, A., Schneider, K., Gulavita, S., & Freeman, C. (2010). Long-Term Results of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0906260
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.
