Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 299

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Significance of Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis in Primary Breast Cancer

Jatoi, Ismail, Hilsenbeck, Susan G., Clark, Gary M., Osborne, C. Kent·1999·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: Axillary lymph node status is the single most important prognostic variable in the management of patients with primary breast cancer. Yet, it is not known whether metastasis to the axillary nodes is simply a time-dependent variable or also a marker for a more aggressive tumor phenotype. The purpose of this study was to determine whether nodal status at initial diagnosis predicts outcome after relapse and therefore also serves as a marker of breast cancer phenotype. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Survival experience after first relapse in 1,696 primary breast cancer cases was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression. The following explanatory variables and their first-order interactions were considered: number of axillary lymph nodes involved (zero v one to three v four or more), hormone receptor status (any estrogen receptor [ER] negativity v ER negativity/progesterone receptor positivity v other ER positivity), primary tumor size (< 2 cm v 2 to 5 cm v > 5 cm), site of relapse (locoregional v distant), disease-free interval (< 1.5 years v 1.5 to 3 years v > 3 years), adjuvant endocrine therapy (none v any), adjuvant chemotherapy (none v any), and menopausal status (pre-, peri-, or postmenopausal). RESULTS: Axillary lymph node status, site of relapse, and hormone receptor status were all highly significant as main effects in the model. After adjustment for other variables, disease-free interval alone was only modestly significant but interacted with nodal status. After disease-free interval, hormone receptor status, and site of relapse were accounted for, survival after relapse was poorer in node-positive cases, when compared with node-negative cases. The hazard ratios for patients with one to three and four or more involved nodes were 1.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 1.9) and 2.5 (95% CI, 1.8 to 3.4), respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients with four or more involved nodes at initial diagnosis have a significantly worse outcome after relapse than node-negative cases, regardless of the duration of the disease-free interval. We conclude that nodal metastasis is not only a marker of diagnosis at a later point in the natural history of breast cancer but also a marker of an aggressive phenotype.

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 · 10.1200/jco.1999.17.8.2334

Cites

16 of 16 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 16 references

Cited by

See all 299

Metadata

Authors
Jatoi, I., Hilsenbeck, S. G., Clark, G. M., & Osborne, C. K.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1999-08
Volume
17
Issue
8
Pages
2334-2334
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2129487338
Cited by
299
References
16
FWCI
1.98
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: Significance of Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis in Primary Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1999.17.8.2334
The paper
Jatoi, I., Hilsenbeck, S. G., Clark, G. M., & Osborne, C. K. (1999). Significance of Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis in Primary Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1999.17.8.2334

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.