Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 363

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

Missed Opportunities: Racial Disparities in Adjuvant Breast Cancer Treatment

Bickell, Nina A., Wang, Jason J., Oluwole, Soji, Schrag, Deborah, Godfrey, Henry, Hiotis, Karen, Mendez, Jane, Guth, Amber A.·2006·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Underuse of adjuvant therapy is a potentially important and remediable explanation for the inferior survival of minority women with breast cancer. We sought to measure a racial disparity in the underuse of adjuvant treatments for early-stage breast cancer and to identify associated factors. Methods: Cross-sectional study with review of all inpatient and outpatient medical records of 677 women treated surgically for a primary American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I or II breast cancer in 1999 to 2000. Underuse was defined as omissions of radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy after resection of hormone-receptor-negative tumors ≥ 1 cm, or hormonal therapy for receptor-positive tumors ≥ 1 cm. Results: One hundred forty-five (21%) of 677 women experienced underuse of appropriate adjuvant therapy: 16% in whites, 34% in blacks, and 23% in Hispanics (P < .001). Women referred to medical oncologists were less likely to experience underuse of necessary adjuvant treatments (relative risk [RR] for underuse = 0.2; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.3). Women who were minorities (RR = 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.1), had higher levels of comorbidity (RR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.8) and lacked insurance (RR = 1.9; 95% CI, 0.9 to 4.0) were at greater risk for underuse. Conclusion: Minority women with early-stage breast cancer have double the risk of white women for failing to receive necessary adjuvant treatments despite rates of oncologic consultation similar to those for white women. Oncology referrals are necessary to reduce treatment disparities but are not sufficient to ensure patients' receipt of efficacious adjuvant treatment.

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.2005.04.5799

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 363

Metadata

Authors
Bickell, N. A., Wang, J. J., Oluwole, S., Schrag, D., Godfrey, H., Hiotis, K., Mendez, J., & Guth, A. A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2006-03-20
Volume
24
Issue
9
Pages
1357-1362
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2164669790
Cited by
363
References
27
FWCI
8.81
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: Missed Opportunities: Racial Disparities in Adjuvant Breast Cancer Treatment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2005.04.5799
The paper
Bickell, N. A., Wang, J. J., Oluwole, S., Schrag, D., Godfrey, H., Hiotis, K., Mendez, J., & Guth, A. A. (2006). Missed Opportunities: Racial Disparities in Adjuvant Breast Cancer Treatment. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.04.5799

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.