SynthesisCancer treatment reviews2021
The COVID-19 pandemic: An opportunity to rethink and harmonise the frequency of follow-up visits for patients with early stage breast cancer.
Synthesis in Cancer treatment reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05365230 (A Randomized Trial Evaluating Personalized vs Guideline-based Well Follow-up Strategies for Patients With Early-stage Breast Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Randomized Trial Evaluating Personalized vs Guideline-based Well Follow-up Strategies for Patients With Early-stage Breast Cancer (REaCT-Wellness)
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Randomized Trial Evaluating Personalized Versus Guideline-Based Well Follow-Up Strategies for Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Feasibility Outcomes.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Trial
- A Randomized Trial Comparing 3- versus 4-Monthly Cardiac Monitoring in Patients Receiving Trastuzumab-Based Chemotherapy for Early Breast Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Trial
- Evolving strategies for the routine follow-up of patients with early breast cancer and the impact of COVID-19: a survey of healthcare providers.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- The COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on follow-up of patients with early breast cancer: A patient survey.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024Article
- Regularly scheduled physical examinations and the detection of breast cancer recurrences.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2023Article
- Integrating Systematic Reviews into Supportive Care Trial Design: The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) Program.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
- The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) Program. A Canadian-Led Pragmatic Trials Program: Strategies for Integrating Knowledge Users into Trial Design.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWhile routine, in-person follow-up of early-stage breast cancer patients (EBC) after completion of initial treatment is common, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented changes in clinical practice. A systematic review was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting different frequencies of routine follow-up.
methodsMEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library were searched from database inception to July 16, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies (PCS) evaluating different frequencies of routine follow-up. Citations were assessed by pairs of independent reviewers. Risk of Bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies. Findings were summarized narratively.
resultsThe literature search identified 3316 studies, of which 7 (6 RCTs and 1 PCS) were eligible. Study endpoints included; quality of life (QoL; 5 RCTs and 1 PCS), disease free survival (DFS) (1 RCT), overall survival (OS) (1 RCT) and cost-effectiveness (1 RCT). The results showed reduction in follow-up frequency had no adverse effect on: QoL (6 studies, n = 920), DFS (1 trial, n = 472) or OS (1 trial, n = 472), but improved cost-effectiveness (1 trial, n = 472). Four RCTs specifically examined follow-up on-demand versus scheduled follow-up visits and found no statistically significant differences in QoL (n = 544).
conclusionWhile no evidence-based guidelines suggest that follow-up of EBC patients improves DFS or OS, routinely scheduled in-person assessment is common. RCT data suggests that reduced frequency of follow-up has no adverse effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.