ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2024
Adherence to guideline recommendations for follow-up in patients with DCIS at a large teaching hospital in the Netherlands.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDuctal-carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a pre-invasive form of breast cancer with good prognosis. Follow-up guidelines in the Netherlands are currently the same as for invasive breast cancer. Due to fear of invasive breast cancer or recurrence, it is hypothesized that follow-up for DCIS after treatment is more intense in practice resulting in potentially unnecessary high costs. This study investigates the follow-up in practice for patients with DCIS compared to the recommendations in order to inform clinicians and policy makers how to utilize these guidelines.
methodsPatients diagnosed with pure DCIS between 2004 and 2014 were followed up until 2018. Information on duration and frequency of follow-up visits, reasons and decision makers for shortening, and prolonging follow-up was collected. Prolonged follow-up was defined as deviation from the Dutch guideline: more than 5 years of follow-up and older than 60 years.
resultsOf the 227 patients the mean number of visits per year was 1.4 and mean years of follow-up was 6.0. Thirty-three percent had prolonged follow-up and 26% shorter follow-up than recommended. A majority (78%) of decision for prolonged follow-up was being made by clinicians.
conclusionFollow-up duration is in almost half of patients with DCIS according to guidelines and with most prolonged follow-up only up to a year longer than recommended. In most cases suspicious findings and the timing of the population screening program appeared to cause prolonged follow-up. If accepted by patients and clinicians, future DCIS specific guidelines should address these reasons and tailor to the individual risks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38874687What 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.