Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 330

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 access
King, Tari A., Sakr, Rita, Patil, Sujata, Gurevich, Inga, Stempel, Michelle, Sampson, Michelle, Morrow, Monica·2011·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2010.29.4041

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 330

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.