Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 442

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Trends and Variation in Use of Breast Reconstruction in Patients With Breast Cancer Undergoing Mastectomy in the United States

Open access
Jagsi, Reshma, Jiang, Jing, Momoh, Adeyiza O., Alderman, Amy, Giordano, Sharon H., Buchholz, Thomas A., Kronowitz, Steven J., Smith, Benjamin D.·2014·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Concerns exist regarding breast cancer patients' access to breast reconstruction, which provides important psychosocial benefits. Patients and Methods: Using the MarketScan database, a claims-based data set of US patients with employment-based insurance, we identified 20,560 women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer from 1998 to 2007. We evaluated time trends using the Cochran-Armitage test and correlated reconstruction use with plastic-surgery workforce density and other treatments using multivariable regression. Results: Median age of our sample was 51 years. Reconstruction use increased from 46% in 1998 to 63% in 2007 (P < .001), with increased use of implants and decreased use of autologous techniques over time (P < .001). Receipt of bilateral mastectomy also increased: from 3% in 1998 to 18% in 2007 (P < .001). Patients receiving bilateral mastectomy were more likely to receive reconstruction (odds ratio [OR], 2.3; P < .001) and patients receiving radiation were less likely to receive reconstruction (OR, 0.44; P < .001). Rates of reconstruction receipt varied dramatically by geographic region, with associations with plastic surgeon density in each state and county-level income. Autologous techniques were more often used in patients who received both reconstruction and radiation (OR, 1.8; P < .001) and less frequently used in patients with capitated insurance (OR, 0.7; P < .001), patients undergoing bilateral mastectomy (OR, 0.5; P < .001), or patients in the highest income quartile (OR, 0.7; P = .006). Delayed reconstruction was performed in 21% of patients who underwent reconstruction. Conclusion: Breast reconstruction has increased over time, but it has wide geographic variability. Receipt of other treatments correlates with the use of and approaches toward reconstruction. Further research and interventions are needed to ensure equitable access to this important component of multidisciplinary treatment of 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.2013.52.2284

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 442

Metadata

Authors
Jagsi, R., Jiang, J., Momoh, A. O., Alderman, A., Giordano, S. H., Buchholz, T. A., Kronowitz, S. J., & Smith, B. D.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2014-03-20
Volume
32
Issue
9
Pages
919-926
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2128552180
Cited by
442
References
3
FWCI
40.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Trends and Variation in Use of Breast Reconstruction in Patients With Breast Cancer Undergoing Mastectomy in the United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2013.52.2284
The paper
Jagsi, R., Jiang, J., Momoh, A. O., Alderman, A., Giordano, S. H., Buchholz, T. A., Kronowitz, S. J., & Smith, B. D. (2014). Trends and Variation in Use of Breast Reconstruction in Patients With Breast Cancer Undergoing Mastectomy in the United States. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.52.2284

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.