4.7 Article

The value of routine physical examination in the follow up of women with a history of early breast cancer

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 47, Issue 5, Pages 676-682

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.11.006

Keywords

Breast neoplasm; Contra-lateral breast cancer (CBC); Loco-regional recurrence (LRR); Physical examination

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Routine physical examination is recommended in follow up guidelines for women with a history of breast cancer. The objective of this paper is to assess the contribution of routine physical examination in addition to mammography in the early diagnosis of breast cancer recurrences. Patients and methods: The medical follow-up documents of 669 patients were reviewed. 127 contra-lateral breast cancers (CBCs) and 58 loco-regional recurrences (LRRs) in 163 patients were included. The additional contribution of routine physical examination over mammography was evaluated with the proportions of CBCs or LRRs detected by physical examination alone. chi(2) tests were used to compare the difference of contribution of physical examination among subgroups. Results: Seven (6%) out of 127 CBCs and 13 (22%) out of 58 LRRs were detected by routine physical examination alone. Six LARs (17%; 6/35) were in patients after breast conserving surgery and seven LARs (30%; 7/23) in patients after mastectomy. There was a trend that the contribution of physical examination is higher in women under 60 years of age in the detection of CBCs (9%; 5/57) and LARs (28%, 8/29) than in women over 60 years of age (CBCs:3%; 2/70 and LRRs:17%, 5/29; chi(2) = 3.090, P = 0.079). Conclusions: Twenty-two percent of loco regional breast cancer recurrences would have been detected later without physical examination. Routine physical examination may be most valuable for women with a history of breast cancer younger than 60 years at follow-up visit. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available