Follow-up for breast cancer - the patients' view

Background: International and national guidelines (S3 guideline) for the surveillance of post-treatment breast cancer patients recommend a clinical follow-up including routine history and physical examination and regular mammograms. The practice of a clinical follow-up has been often discussed, but has been proven not to be inferior when compared to an intensified follow-up in randomized trials. Patients and Methods: The present manuscript reports the patients' view on the basis of a survey including 2000 patients with a history of breast cancer. Results: A total of 452 patients (22.6%) answered the questionnaire. The median age was 62 years (range 23-85 years). More than 80% of the patients were disease-free at the time of the survey. The need for surveillance was affirmed by the majority of patients (>95%), and one third stated that there was a need for more technical efforts during follow-up. In contrast to the follow-up guidelines, the results of the present survey indicated that most of the regularly scheduled follow-up visits were expanded using extensive laboratory and imaging procedures. Conclusion: This survey shows that the majority of physicians obviously do not accept the present follow-up guidelines. A new surveillance study investigating the efficacy of an intensified surveillance based on the improved possibilities of modern diagnostics and endocrine, immunotherapeutic, chemotherapeutic and interventional treatment options is warranted

Follow-up care for cancer survivors: views of the younger adult

BACKGROUND: Since the launch of the National Cancer Survivorship Initiative, there has been a surge of interest surrounding the value and organisation of long-term follow-up care after cancer treatment. We report the views of 309 adult cancer survivors (aged 18-45 years) on provision of follow-up and preferences for care. METHODS: A total of 207 survivors completed questionnaires before and after routine consultant-led follow-up appointments and 102 were recruited by post. Measures of health status (including late effects, perceived vulnerability to late effects and quality of life), reasons for attending follow-up (clinical and supportive), issues to be discussed at follow-up and preferences for different models of care were assessed. RESULTS: In all, 59% of the survivors reported experiencing one or more cancer-related health problems. Survivors rated clinical reasons for attending follow-up more highly than supportive reasons (P < 0.001), although nutritional advice and counselling were considered useful (60 and 47%, respectively). Those still receiving scheduled follow-up appointments did not discuss the range of issues intended with 'late effects' and 'fertility', which were particularly under-discussed. Hospital rather than GP follow-up was more highly rated. CONCLUSION: Survivors value the clinical reassurance currently provided by consultant-led care. However, supportive needs are not systematically addressed. Multi-disciplinary services are recommended to meet supportive needs in addition to clinical care