Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37116159›Full record

ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2023

Follow-Up Strategies and Detection of Recurrent Breast Cancer in the Modern Era.

Suthinee Ithimakin, Natthakit Luengwatthanakit, Concord Wongkraisri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Suthinee IthimakinDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-4205-6112
Natthakit LuengwatthanakitDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-3996-7302
Concord WongkraisriDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-8819-4211

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRegular history assessments and physical examination with annual breast imaging have been recommended as the standard surveillance protocol for breast cancer patients who underwent curative-intent therapy. Based on randomized studies conducted in the 2000s, surveillance with regular chest or abdominal imaging, chemistry panels, or tumor marker measurements does not improve survival in such patients. Given the remarkable recent improvements of systemic therapy, we hypothesized that more intensive surveillance may lead to early detection and improve treatment outcomes in the modern era.

methodsWe retrospectively evaluated the follow-up strategies and benefits of investigations used in usual practice. Breast cancer patients who had initial adjuvant therapy were recruited and classified according to the receipt of standard follow-up (history, physical examination, and annual breast imaging) or alternative follow-up (surveillance with at least annual chest or abdominal imaging or biannual liver function testing). The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included disease-free survival and the indicator of recurrence detection.

resultsOf 412 recruited patients, 213 (51.7%) and 199 patients (49.3%) were included in the standard follow-up group and alternative follow-up group, respectively. Among 90 patients (21%) with disease recurrence, the most frequent indicators of recurrence were newly reported symptoms or physical examination abnormalities (64%), followed by abnormal breast imaging (23%) and abnormal chest X-ray (10%). After a median follow-up of 85 months, approximately 90% of patients remained alive after 5 years in both groups. The mean overall survival was similar between the standard and alternative follow-up groups (154.5 months vs. 151.9 months, p = 0.54). There was no difference in terms of the proportion of interval visits, specific cancer treatment received, and disease-free survival.

conclusionStandard follow-up with history assessments, physical examination, and annual breast imaging remains the recommended surveillance strategy in the modern era. Alternative follow-up strategy did not improve oncologic outcomes.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDiagnostic ImagingFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRetrospective Studiesbreast cancerfollow-upRecurrence detectionSurveillance

Identifiers

PMID37116159
PMCPMC10352744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.