Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38409613›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2024

Opportunities for personalised follow-up in breast cancer: the gap between daily practice and recurrence risk.

Madelon M Voets, Noa S Hassink, Jeroen Veltman, Cornelis H Slump, Hendrik Koffijberg, Sabine Siesling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Patient-perceived barriers and facilitators for risk-stratified follow-up care in lung cancer: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Madelon M VoetsDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4280-3306
Noa S HassinkDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Jeroen VeltmanMulti-Modality Medical Imaging, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6824-3987
Cornelis H SlumpDepartment of Robotics and Mechatronics, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6544-4567
Hendrik KoffijbergDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1753-0652
Sabine SieslingDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands. s.siesling@iknl.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0273-824X

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding 17924Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 17924
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFollow-up guidelines barely diverge from a one-size-fits-all approach, even though the risk of recurrence differs per patient. However, the personalization of breast cancer care improves outcomes for patients. This study explores the variation in follow-up pathways in the Netherlands using real-world data to determine guideline adherence and the gap between daily practice and risk-based surveillance, to demonstrate the benefits of personalized risk-based surveillance compared with usual care.

methodsPatients with stage I-III invasive breast cancer who received surgical treatment in a general hospital between 2005 and 2020 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and included all imaging activities during follow-up from hospital-based electronic health records. Process analysis techniques were used to map patients and activities to investigate the real-world utilisation of resources and identify the opportunities for improvement. The INFLUENCE 2.0 nomogram was used for risk prediction of recurrence.

resultsIn the period between 2005 and 2020, 3478 patients were included with a mean follow-up of 4.9 years. In the first 12 months following treatment, patients visited the hospital between 1 and 5 times (mean 1.3, IQR 1-1) and received between 1 and 9 imaging activities (mean 1.7, IQR 1-2). Mammogram was the prevailing imaging modality, accounting for 70% of imaging activities. Patients with a low predicted risk of recurrence visited the hospital more often.

conclusionsDeviations from the guideline were not in line with the risk of recurrence and revealed a large gap, indicating that it is hard for clinicians to accurately estimate this risk and therefore objective risk predictions could bridge this gap.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalAdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGuideline AdherenceHumansMammographyMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingNetherlandsNomogramsPrecision MedicineRegistriesRisk AssessmentBreast cancerFollow-upProcess miningReal-world dataResource utilisationRisk of recurrence

Identifiers

PMID38409613
PMCPMC11101519

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.