The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clinical Management Factors Contribute to the Decision for Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: To determine whether increasing rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) are due to recognition of risk factors for contralateral breast cancer (CBC) or treatment factors related to the index lesion. Methods: From 1997 to 2005, 2,965 patients with stage 0 to III primary unilateral breast cancer underwent mastectomy at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Patients who did and did not undergo CPM within 1 year of treatment for their index cancer were compared to identify independent predictors of CPM. Results: The rate of CPM was 13.8% (n = 407), increasing from 6.7% in 1997 to 24.2% in 2005 (P < .0001). Patients with BRCA mutations or prior mantle radiation (n = 52) accounted for 13% of those having CPM. The rate of CPM by surgeon varied from 1% to 26%. Multivariate logistic regression adjusting for surgeon-identified white race (odds ratio [OR] = 3.3), immediate reconstruction (OR = 3.3), family history of breast cancer (OR = 2.9), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at diagnosis (OR = 2.8), age younger than 50 years (OR = 2.2), noninvasive histology (OR = 1.8), and prior attempt at breast conversation (OR = 1.7) to be independent predictors of CPM. Conclusion: These data suggest that increasing use of CPM is not associated with increased recognition of patients at high risk for CBC. Treatment factors, such as immediate reconstruction, preoperative MRI, and unsuccessful attempts at breast conservation, are associated with increased rates of CPM. Efforts to optimize breast conservation, minimize unnecessary tests, and improve patient education about the low risk of CBC may help to curb this trend.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cuzick, J., Sestak, I., Baum, M., Buzdar, A., Howell, A., Dowsett, M., & Forbes, J. F. (2010) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70257-6 · Cited by 1,674
Cited by
Rosenberg, S. M., Tracy, M. S., Meyer, M. E., Sepucha, K., Gelber, S., Hirshfield-Bartek, J., Troyan, S., Morrow, M., Schapira, L., Come, S. E., et al. (2013) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-6-201309170-00003 · Cited by 265
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- King, T. A., Sakr, R., Patil, S., Gurevich, I., Stempel, M., Sampson, M., & Morrow, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2011-06-01
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 2158-2164
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2111014842
- Cited by
- 330
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 18.27
- 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: Clinical Management Factors Contribute to the Decision for Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2010.29.4041
- The paper
- King, T. A., Sakr, R., Patil, S., Gurevich, I., Stempel, M., Sampson, M., & Morrow, M. (2011). Clinical Management Factors Contribute to the Decision for Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2010.29.4041
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.