| Autor: |
Eijkelboom, Anouk H., de Munck, Linda, de Vries, Maaike, Francken, Anne Brecht, Hendriks, Mathijs P., Strobbe, Luc, Witteveen, Annemieke, van Maaren, Marissa C., Siesling, Sabine |
| Zdroj: |
Breast Cancer Research & Treatment; Jan2023, Vol. 197 Issue 1, p123-135, 13p |
| Abstrakt: |
Purpose: Follow-up for breast cancer survivors consists of after care and surveillance. The benefits of routine surveillance visits remain debatable. In this study we compared the severity of locoregional recurrences (LRRs) and the subsequent risk of a distant metastasis (DM) between LRRs detected at routine and interval visits. Methods: Women diagnosed with early breast cancer between 2003 and 2008 in one of the 15 participating hospitals, and who developed a LRR as first event after primary treatment, were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (Cohort A). Chi-squared tests were used to compare the severity of routine- and interval-detected local recurrences (LRs) and regional recurrences (RRs), using tumor size, tumor grade, and number of positive lymph nodes. Data on the development of a subsequent DM after a LRR were available for a subset of patients (Cohort B). Cohort B was used to estimate the association between way of LRR-detection and risk of a DM. Results: Cohort A consisted of 109 routine- and 113 interval-LRR patients. The severity of routine-detected LRs or RRs and interval-detected LRs or RRs did not significantly differ. Cohort B consisted of 66 routine- and 61 interval-LRR patients. Sixteen routine- (24%) and 17 (28%) interval-LRR patients developed a DM. After adjustment, way of LRR-detection was not significantly associated with the risk of a DM (hazard ratio: 1.22; 95% confidence interval: 0.49–3.06). Conclusion: The current study showed that routine visits did not lead to less severe LRRs and did not decrease the risk of a subsequent DM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink