Table 3 Method of detection of all locoregional relapses for all studies

From: Follow-up in breast cancer: does routine clinical examination improve outcome? A systematic review of the literature

 

Initial surgery

Number of patients in study

Total number of patients with relapse

Patient detected relapses

Mammographically detected relapses

Clinical examination detected relapses

Unknown or incidental relapse detection

Tate et al (1989)

Not given

510

27

16 (59%)

0

11 (41%)

0

Churn and Kelly, 2001

Mastectomy

105

9

1 (12%)

0

6 (66%)

2 (22%)

Snee 1994

Mastectomy

33

5

2 (40%)

n/a

3 (60%)

0

Lees et al (1997)

Mastectomy and conservation

438

83

46 (55%)

15 (18%)

22 (27%)

0

Grunfeld et al (1996)

Mastectomy and conservation

296

7

2 (28.66%)

2 (28.66%)

2 (28.66%)

1 (14%)

Mahoney (1986)

Conservation

273

52

20 (38%)

1 (2%)

31 (60%)

0

Rutgers et al (1991)

Conservation

44

44

26 (59%)

8 (18%)

10 (23%)

0

Hussain et al (1995)

Conservation

354

33

4 (12%)

5 (15%)

24 (73%)

0

Jack et al (1998)

Conservation

341

39

15 (38%)

12 (31%)

12 (31%)

0

Churn and Kelly, 2001

Conservation

511

25

9 (36%)

7 (28%)

8 (32%)

1

Grogan et al (2002)

Conservation

104

4

2 (50%)

2 (50%)

0

0

van der Sangen et al (2006)

Conservation

3280

102

41 (41%)

32 (32%)

13 (13%)

16 (16%)

Montgomery et al (2007)

Conservation

1312

110

37 (33.5%)

56 (51%)

15 (13.5%)

2 (2%)

Total

 

7601

540

221 (41%)

135 (25%)

162 (30%)

22 (4%)