Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35962739›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2022

Adherence to the Dutch Breast Cancer Guidelines for Surveillance in Breast Cancer Survivors: Real-World Data from a Pooled Multicenter Analysis.

Teresa Draeger, Vinzenz Voelkel, Kay Schreuder, Jeroen Veltman, Anneriet Dassen, Luc Strobbe, Harald J Heijmans, Ron Koelemij, Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Sabine Siesling

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Teresa DraegerTumor Center Regensburg/University of Regensburg, Institute for Quality Control and Health Services Research, Regensburg, Germany.
Vinzenz VoelkelTumor Center Regensburg/University of Regensburg, Institute for Quality Control and Health Services Research, Regensburg, Germany.
Kay SchreuderDepartment of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jeroen VeltmanDepartment of Radiology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, The Netherlands.
Anneriet DassenDepartment of Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Luc StrobbeDepartment of Surgery, Canisius Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Harald J HeijmansDepartment of Surgery, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Hengelo, The Netherlands.
Ron KoelemijDepartment of Surgery, Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5168-0822
Catharina G M Groothuis-OudshoornDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Sabine SieslingDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0273-824X
Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation · NLUniversity of Regensburg · DEZiekenhuis Groep Twente · NLCanisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis · NLMedisch Spectrum Twente · NLSt. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NLUniversity of Twente · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRegular follow-up after treatment for breast cancer is crucial to detect potential recurrences and second contralateral breast cancer in an early stage. However, information about follow-up patterns in the Netherlands is scarce. PATIENTS AND

methodsDetails concerning diagnostic procedures and policlinic visits in the first 5 years following a breast cancer diagnosis were gathered between 2009 and 2019 for 9916 patients from 4 large Dutch hospitals. This information was used to analyze the adherence of breast cancer surveillance to guidelines in the Netherlands. Multivariable logistic regression was used to relate the average number of a patient's imaging procedures to their demographics, tumor-treatment characteristics, and individual locoregional recurrence risk (LRR), estimated by a risk-prediction tool, called INFLUENCE.

resultsThe average number of policlinic contacts per patient decreased from 4.4 in the first to 2.0 in the fifth follow-up year. In each of the 5 follow-up years, the share of patients without imaging procedures was relatively high, ranging between 31.4% and 33.6%. Observed guidelines deviations were highly significant (P < .001). A higher age, lower UICC stage, and having undergone radio- or chemotherapy were significantly associated with a higher chance of receiving an imaging procedure. The estimated average LRR-risk was 3.5% in patients without any follow-up imaging compared with 2.3% in patients with the recommended number of 5 imagings.

conclusionCompared to guidelines, more policlinic visits were made, although at inadequate intervals, and fewer imaging procedures were performed. The frequency of imaging procedures did not correlate with the patients' individual risk profiles for LRR.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCancer SurvivorsFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalSurvivorsbreast cancerdaily clinical practicefollow-upguideline adherencehealth services research

Identifiers

PMID35962739
PMCPMC9526487
OpenAlexW4291209170

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.