However, it should be noted that not all the papers, mainly from North America, report the modalities of follow-up [91–121], even if we selected RCTs with primary endpoint represented by DFS, which can be affected by the surveillance methodologies applied. Possible explanations could be that i) the authors and referees do not think this is a relevant issue or ii) https://www.selleckchem.com/products/azd9291.html a follow-up according to established guidelines was applied, thus making it unnecessary to specify.

The second hypothesis may be more likely, since the minimalist follow-up suggested by international guidelines is more frequently followed by North American while intensive follow-up is preferred by Western European and East Asian trialists. Our analysis also suggests that the use of the different strategies of follow-up is not dictated by the necessity of costs containment as it has been suggested [129–131], since no relationship with industrial sponsorships, number of participating centers and number of enrolled FK866 research buy patients has been found. It seems more likely that the intensive surveillance

methodology in RCTs follows Western European and East Asian cultural attitudes of scientists and medical oncologists towards the care of breast cancer patients [132]. In this respect, it has recently been reported that many European and East Asian breast cancer patients receive more intensive follow-up care than recommended by the current guideline [6, 25, 26, 133, 134] even if, at JPH203 in vivo a lesser extent, this has been also reported for American and Canadian patients [27, 28]. The frequency of follow-up is higher in the first 2–3 years after surgery and tends to decrease thereafter. Almost all RCTs, except few studies [46, 83, 84], continue programmed controls at least 5 years after treatment, independently from the chosen follow-up methodology. These issues are still object of debate [135], since neither the optimum frequency nor duration of

follow-up has been clearly defined [23, 136, 137]. Results from two Italian phase III RCTs, both published in 1994 [11, 12] and several Obatoclax Mesylate (GX15-070) retrospective studies [138–141] demonstrated that intensive follow-up strategies including chest radiography, bone scan, liver ultrasound and tumor markers measurements do not improve survival as compared to history taking, physical examinations and annual mammography. On the basis of these data, the American Society of Clinical Oncology published in 1997 and periodically updated thereafter [19, 128, 142] breast cancer follow-up guidelines recommending a minimal approach. We found no increase in the use of minimalist follow-up among RCTs beginning to enroll patients one year after published guidelines (i.e. 1998).