BMJ 1996;313:1547 (14 December)

Letters

Routine follow up of breast cancer in primary care

Follow up by non-specialists should not be encouraged

EDITOR,--While I welcome new initiatives in the management of breast cancer, I believe that the study by Eva Grunfeld and colleagues must be interpreted with caution.1 The authors report no delay in the diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer or reduction in the quality of life of patients randomised to follow up by their general practitioner, but their conclusions must be questioned. The data on recurrence are based on a short follow up (18 months) and small numbers (10 women followed up by their general practitioner, 16 followed up in hospital), and the comparisons of quality of life are flawed. Women randomised to follow up by their general practitioner knew that they were under special surveillance, which is different from being "discharged" from hospital. A third of women declined to enter the trial even under these circumstances.

Guidelines drawn up by the breast . . . [Full text of this article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Routine follow up of breast cancer in primary care: randomised trial
Eva Grunfeld, David Mant, Patricia Yudkin, Ruth Adewuyi-Dalton, David Cole, Jill Stewart, Ray Fitzpatrick, and Martin Vessey
BMJ 1996 313: 665-669. [Abstract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Bernhardt, B., Hayes, D., Loprinzi, C. L., Smith, T. J. (2000). Correspondence Re: ""Doc, Shouldn't We Be Getting Some Tests?"". JCO 18: 3739-3741 [Full text]  
  • Rodger, A. (1997). Routine follow up of breast cancer in primary care. BMJ 314: 1129-1129 [Full text]  
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ