Follow-up tests to detect recurrent disease: Patient's reassurance or medical need?

Abstract

It is widely believed by both doctors and patients that regular follow-up with imaging is important for patients who have been treated for early breast cancer. In reality, current evidence does not support this. Randomised trials have shown no benefit for intensive versus routine follow-up and studies have also shown that follow-up by a general practitioner or nurse specialist is likely to be as effective as by a breast cancer specialist. Specifically there is no evidence that specialised imaging including PET/CT is of any benefit. Newer approaches including the assessment of circulating tumour cells and/or circulating tumour DNA may eventually prove advantageous, but currently must be considered experimental. In summary, current evidence suggests that there is no basis for intensive follow-up beyond standard regular clinical assessment and annual mammography following treatment of early breast cancer. There may be better models for follow-up than the traditional resource-intensive hospital outpatient visit, including nurse-led open access follow-up. Monitoring for long-term sequelae of treatment is becoming as important as the detection of recurrence in an era where long-term survival is increasingly common.