Twenty-Five-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Trial Comparing Radical Mastectomy, Total Mastectomy, and Total Mastectomy Followed by Irradiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In women with breast cancer, the role of radical mastectomy, as compared with less extensive surgery, has been a matter of debate. We report 25-year findings of a randomized trial initiated in 1971 to determine whether less extensive surgery with or without radiation therapy was as effective as the Halsted radical mastectomy. METHODS: A total of 1079 women with clinically negative axillary nodes underwent radical mastectomy, total mastectomy without axillary dissection but with postoperative irradiation, or total mastectomy plus axillary dissection only if their nodes became positive. A total of 586 women with clinically positive axillary nodes either underwent radical mastectomy or underwent total mastectomy without axillary dissection but with postoperative irradiation. Kaplan-Meier and cumulative-incidence estimates of outcome were obtained. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed among the three groups of women with negative nodes or between the two groups of women with positive nodes with respect to disease-free survival, relapse-free survival, distant-disease-free survival, or overall survival. Among women with negative nodes, the hazard ratio for death among those who were treated with total mastectomy and radiation as compared with those who underwent radical mastectomy was 1.08 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.28; P=0.38), and the hazard ratio for death among those who had total mastectomy without radiation as compared with those who underwent radical mastectomy was 1.03 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.87 to 1.23; P=0.72). Among women with positive nodes, the hazard ratio for death among those who underwent total mastectomy and radiation as compared with those who underwent radical mastectomy was 1.06 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.89 to 1.27; P=0.49). CONCLUSIONS: The findings validate earlier results showing no advantage from radical mastectomy. Although differences of a few percentage points cannot be excluded, the findings fail to show a significant survival advantage from removing occult positive nodes at the time of initial surgery or from radiation therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".