Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 321

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Margin Status on Local Recurrence After Breast Conservation and Radiation Therapy for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

Open access
Dunne, Clive, Burke, John P., Morrow, Monica, Kell, Malcolm R.·2009·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: There is no consensus on what constitutes an adequate surgical margin in patients receiving breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and postoperative radiation therapy (RT) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Inadequate margins may result in high local recurrence, and excessively large resections may lead to poor cosmetic outcome without oncologic benefit. Methods: A comprehensive search for published trials that examined outcomes after adjuvant RT after BCS for DCIS was performed using MEDLINE and cross referencing available data. Reviews of each study were conducted, and data were extracted. Primary outcome was ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) related to surgical margins. Results: A total of 4,660 patients were identified from trials examining BCS and RT for DCIS. Patients with negative margins were significantly less likely to experience recurrence than patients with positive margins after RT (odds ratio [OR] = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.47). A negative margin significantly reduced the risk of IBTR when compared with a close (OR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.83) or unknown margin (OR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.87). When specific margin thresholds were examined, a 2-mm margin was superior to a margin less than 2 mm (OR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.96); however, we saw no significant difference in the rate of IBTR with margins between 2 mm and more than 5 mm (OR = 1.51; 95% CI, 0.51 to 5.0; P > .05). Conclusion: Surgical margins negative for DCIS should be obtained after BCS for DCIS. A margin threshold of 2 mm seems to be as good as a larger margin when BCS for DCIS is combined with RT.

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.2008.17.5182

Cites

1 of 1 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

  • Quantitative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews

    Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Schmid, C. H. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-127-9-199711010-00008 · Cited by 2,517 · cited 2×

    “Heterogeneity between the ORs for the same outcome between studies was assessed by use of the (2)-based Q statistic.(34) Data were then combined across studies by the use of general variance methods with fixed and random effects models.”
    Method

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 321

Metadata

Authors
Dunne, C., Burke, J. P., Morrow, M., & Kell, M. R.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2009-04-01
Volume
27
Issue
10
Pages
1615-1620
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2165288102
Cited by
321
References
1
FWCI
10.88
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: Effect of Margin Status on Local Recurrence After Breast Conservation and Radiation Therapy for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2008.17.5182
The paper
Dunne, C., Burke, J. P., Morrow, M., & Kell, M. R. (2009). Effect of Margin Status on Local Recurrence After Breast Conservation and Radiation Therapy for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2008.17.5182

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.