ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2021
The effectiveness of mammography surveillance after treatment of primary breast cancer: A single centre retrospective cohort study.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is a little evidence that routine follow-up of patients treated for early breast cancer (BC) to detect ibsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR), or contralateral breast cancer (CBC), is either effective or offers any mortality benefits. We report our experience of following patients with early BC for recurrences and new primaries in order to determine the role of mammogram surveillance.
methodsSingle centre, retrospective primary observational study was designed. Patients who had BC during year 2001-2006 were included and followed for a minimum of ten years. Patients were divided based on the modalities of detecting BC in to screen detected group and clinically detected one i.e. symptomatic BC. These two groups were compared.
resultsTotal number of patients considered for analysis was 2530 (screen detected BC - 703 patients and symptomatic BC - 1827 patients). The rate of recurrence including regional and distant metastasis in screen detected BC group was 8% (57/703) and 2% (43/1827) in symptomatic one. However, the prevalence of IBTR/CBC in the whole cohort was 2% (62/2530). Mammography surveillance identified 60% (37/62) of patients who had IBTRs/CBCs.Mammography surveillance detected 85% (29/34) of all IBTRs/CBCs in the
conclusionsMammography surveillance is efficient for the screen detected BC group but not for the symptomatic one. Hence, it is worth suggesting different follow-up strategies for both groups. Further studies are therefore recommended.
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.