Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 461

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Mammography, and Ultrasound for Surveillance of Women at High Risk for Hereditary Breast Cancer

Warner, E., Plewes, D. B., Shumak, R. S., Catzavelos, G. C., Di Prospero, L. S., Yaffe, M. J., Goel, V., Ramsay, E., Chart, P. L., Cole, D. E.C., Taylor, G. A., Cutrara, M., Samuels, T. H., Murphy, J. P., Murphy, J. M., Narod, S. A.·2001·Journal of Clinical Oncology
DOI 10.1200/jco.2001.19.15.3524
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: Recommended surveillance for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers includes regular mammography and clinical breast examination, although the effectiveness of these screening techniques in mutation carriers has not been established. The purpose of the present study was to compare breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with ultrasound, mammography, and physical examination in women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 196 women, aged 26 to 59 years, with proven BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations or strong family histories of breast or ovarian cancer underwent mammography, ultrasound, MRI, and clinical breast examination on a single day. A biopsy was performed when any of the four investigations was judged to be suspicious for malignancy. RESULTS: Six invasive breast cancers and one noninvasive breast cancer were detected among the 196 high-risk women. Five of the invasive cancers occurred in mutation carriers, and the sixth occurred in a woman with a previous history of breast cancer. The prevalence of invasive or noninvasive breast cancer in the 96 mutation carriers was 6.2%. All six invasive cancers were detected by MRI, all were 1.0 cm or less in diameter, and all were node-negative. In contrast, only three invasive cancers were detected by ultrasound, two by mammography, and two by physical examination. The addition of MRI to the more commonly available triad of mammography, ultrasound, and breast examination identified two additional invasive breast cancers that would otherwise have been missed. CONCLUSION: Breast MRI may be superior to mammography and ultrasound for the screening of women at high risk for hereditary 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2001.19.15.3524

Cites

27 of 27 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 27 references

Cited by

See all 461

Metadata

Authors
Warner, E., Plewes, D. B., Shumak, R. S., Catzavelos, G. C., Di Prospero, L. S., Yaffe, M. J., Goel, V., Ramsay, E., Chart, P. L., Cole, D. E. C., Taylor, G. A., Cutrara, M., Samuels, T. H., Murphy, J. P., Murphy, J. M., & Narod, S. A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Publisher
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Published
2001-08-01
Volume
19
Issue
15
Pages
3524-3531
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
DOI
10.1200/jco.2001.19.15.3524
OpenAlex
W1776948253
Cited by
461
References
27
FWCI
27.49
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: Comparison of Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Mammography, and Ultrasound for Surveillance of Women at High Risk for Hereditary Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2001.19.15.3524
The paper
Warner, E., Plewes, D. B., Shumak, R. S., Catzavelos, G. C., Di Prospero, L. S., Yaffe, M. J., Goel, V., Ramsay, E., Chart, P. L., Cole, D. E. C., Taylor, G. A., Cutrara, M., Samuels, T. H., Murphy, J. P., Murphy, J. M., & Narod, S. A. (2001). Comparison of Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Mammography, and Ultrasound for Surveillance of Women at High Risk for Hereditary Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.15.3524

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.