ArticleThe oncologist2022
Adherence to the Dutch Breast Cancer Guidelines for Surveillance in Breast Cancer Survivors: Real-World Data from a Pooled Multicenter Analysis.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-time data in cancer registries: Validation of an automated data extraction system.iScience · 2025Article
- Nationwide guideline implementation: a qualitative study of barriers and facilitators from the perspective of guideline organizations.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- From genetic risk to early detection - clinical outcomes of a person-centered screening program for women with a high genetic risk of breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- The role of guideline organizations in nationwide guideline implementation: a qualitative study.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Adherence to guideline recommendations for follow-up in patients with DCIS at a large teaching hospital in the Netherlands.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024Article
- Factors Influencing Adherence to the Risk Management Program for Women With a Genetic Predisposition to Breast Cancer: Real-World Data from a French Multicenter Program.The oncologist · 2024Article
- Opportunities for personalised follow-up in breast cancer: the gap between daily practice and recurrence risk.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024Article
- Exploring long-term breast cancer survivors' care trajectories using dynamic time warping-based unsupervised clustering.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- 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
10 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.