Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 227

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Trials of Breast-Conserving Therapy Versus Mastectomy for Primary Breast Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Updated Results

Jatoi, Ismail, Proschan, Michael A.·2005·American Journal of Clinical Oncology
DOI 10.1097/01.coc.0000156922.58631.d7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We have undertaken a pooled analysis of the 6 major randomized trials comparing mastectomy (MT) and breast-conserving therapy (BCT) in the treatment of primary breast cancer. Specifically, these trials compared the 2 most widely used options in local treatment: mastectomy and axillary dissection (MT) versus breast-conserving surgery, axillary dissection, and breast radiotherapy (BCT). The early results of these 6 trials formed the basis for a 1990 National Institutes of Health Consensus statement. However, most of these trials have recently published long-term follow-up results, and this pooled analysis incorporates the updated results of these 6 trials. For each of these trials, the observed number of treatment events was compared with that expected under the null hypothesis, given the number of patients per arm and the total number of events. Approximate odds ratios were computed using the observed and expected number of events, and the variance of the observed number of events. These were then pooled across trials to give overall odds ratios for the risk of locoregional recurrence, total recurrence, and death. Four of the 6 trials show that MT significantly reduces the risk of locoregional recurrence when compared with BCT, and the pooled odds ratio also shows a significant benefit for MT (odds ratio [OR], 1.561; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.289-1.890; P < 0.001). However, only 1 trial shows a statistically significant benefit for MT in reducing mortality, and the pooled odds ratio shows no significant difference between MT and BCT (OR, 1.070; 95% CI, 0.935-1.224; P = 0.33). This pooled analysis confirms that MT and BCT have comparable effects on mortality, even after long-term follow up. However, BCT is associated with a significantly greater risk of locoregional recurrence.

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 · 10.1097/01.coc.0000156922.58631.d7

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 227

Metadata

Authors
Jatoi, I., & Proschan, M. A.
Venue
American Journal of Clinical Oncology
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2005-06
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
289-294
ISSN
0277-3732 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/01.coc.0000156922.58631.d7
OpenAlex
W2084580917
Cited by
227
References
6
FWCI
2.88
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: Randomized Trials of Breast-Conserving Therapy Versus Mastectomy for Primary Breast Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Updated Results. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.coc.0000156922.58631.d7
The paper
Jatoi, I., & Proschan, M. A. (2005). Randomized Trials of Breast-Conserving Therapy Versus Mastectomy for Primary Breast Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Updated Results. American Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.coc.0000156922.58631.d7

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.