Ku Sang Kim1, Zisun Kim2, Eun-Jung Shim3, Nam Hyoung Kim4, So-Youn Jung5, Jisun Kim6, Guiyun Sohn6, Jong Won Lee6, Jihyoung Cho7, Jung Eun Lee8, Juhyung Lee9, Hyun Jo Youn10, Jihyoun Lee11, Min Hyuk Lee11. 1. Department of Surgery, Breast-Thyroid Center, Ulsan City Hospital, Ulsan, Korea. 2. Department of Surgery, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Bucheon, Korea. 3. Department of Psychology, Pusan National University, Pusan, Korea. 4. Department of Advertising and Branding, Kaywon University of Art and Design, Uiwang, Korea. 5. Breast Cancer Center, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea. 6. Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 7. Department of Surgery, Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea. 8. Department of Food and Nutrition, Sookmyung Women's University, Seoul, Korea. 9. Department of Preventive Medicine, Chonbuk National University Medical School, Jeonju, Korea. 10. Department of Surgery, Chonbuk National University Medical School, Jeonju, Korea. 11. Department of Surgery, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Follow-up after primary treatment for breast cancer is an important component of survivor care and various international guidelines exist for the surveillance. However, little is known about current actual practice patterns of physicians whether they adhere to or deviate from recommended guidelines. The aim of this study was to determine how physicians follow-up their patients after primary treatment for breast cancer in Korea. METHODS: A questionnaire survey with 34 questions in 4 categories was e-mailed to the members of Korean Breast Cancer Society from November to December 2013. Respondents were asked how they use follow-up modalities after primary treatment of breast cancer and we compared the survey results with present guidelines. RESULTS: Of the 129 respondents, 123 (95.3%) were breast surgeons. The most important consideration in follow-up was tumor stage. History taking, physical examinations, and mammography were conducted in similar frequency recommended by other guidelines while breast ultrasonography was performed more often. The advanced imaging studies such as CT, MRI, and bone scan, which had been recommended to be conducted only if necessary, were also examined more frequently. Regular screenings for secondary malignancy were performed in 38 respondents (29.5%). Five years later after primary treatment, almost the whole respondents (94.6%) themselves monitored their patients. CONCLUSION: A majority of respondents have been performed more intensive follow-up modalities in comparison with present guidelines and less frequently screenings for secondary malignancy. For optimal follow-up of breast cancer survivors, tailored delivery system should be considered.
PURPOSE: Follow-up after primary treatment for breast cancer is an important component of survivor care and various international guidelines exist for the surveillance. However, little is known about current actual practice patterns of physicians whether they adhere to or deviate from recommended guidelines. The aim of this study was to determine how physicians follow-up their patients after primary treatment for breast cancer in Korea. METHODS: A questionnaire survey with 34 questions in 4 categories was e-mailed to the members of Korean Breast Cancer Society from November to December 2013. Respondents were asked how they use follow-up modalities after primary treatment of breast cancer and we compared the survey results with present guidelines. RESULTS: Of the 129 respondents, 123 (95.3%) were breast surgeons. The most important consideration in follow-up was tumor stage. History taking, physical examinations, and mammography were conducted in similar frequency recommended by other guidelines while breast ultrasonography was performed more often. The advanced imaging studies such as CT, MRI, and bone scan, which had been recommended to be conducted only if necessary, were also examined more frequently. Regular screenings for secondary malignancy were performed in 38 respondents (29.5%). Five years later after primary treatment, almost the whole respondents (94.6%) themselves monitored their patients. CONCLUSION: A majority of respondents have been performed more intensive follow-up modalities in comparison with present guidelines and less frequently screenings for secondary malignancy. For optimal follow-up of breast cancer survivors, tailored delivery system should be considered.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast neoplasms; Guideline; Surveillance; Survivors
Authors: M L Kimman; A C Voogd; C D Dirksen; P Falger; P Hupperets; K Keymeulen; M Hebly; C Dehing; Ph Lambin; L J Boersma Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2007-01-23 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Jennifer Elston Lafata; Jan Simpkins; Lonni Schultz; Gary A Chase; Christine Cole Johnson; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Lois Lamerato; David Nathanson; Greg Cooper Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Julie A Margenthaler; Emad Allam; Ling Chen; Katherine S Virgo; Udayan Mayur Kulkarni; Anand P Patel; Frank E Johnson Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2011-12-13 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Hee Jun Choi; Jai Min Ryu; Isaac Kim; Seok Jin Nam; Seok Won Kim; Jonghan Yu; Jeong Eon Lee; Se Kyung Lee Journal: Ann Surg Treat Res Date: 2019-03-28 Impact factor: 1.859
Authors: Min Jeng Cho; Jung-Hyun Yang; Yeong Beom Yu; Kyoung Sik Park; Hyun Woo Chung; Young So; Nami Choi; Mi Young Kim Journal: Ann Surg Treat Res Date: 2016-03-30 Impact factor: 1.859
Authors: Il Yong Chung; Jihyoun Lee; Suyeon Park; Jong Won Lee; Hyun Jo Youn; Jung Hwa Hong; Ho Hur Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 2.153