A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of long-term follow-up for early stage breast cancer comparing family physician to specialist care: A report of secondary outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6003 Background: Breast cancer patients usually receive follow-up in specialist cancer clinics. We have reported that family physician follow-up of breast cancer patients is a safe and acceptable alternative to specialist follow-up as measured by the primary clinical outcome of the rate of serious clinical events (Grunfeld et al, JCO 2006;24(6)). We report here the secondary outcomes of this trial: quality of life domains, patient satisfaction and patients’ costs. Methods: Women with early stage breast cancer who had completed adjuvant therapy (patients may have continued on adjuvant hormonal therapy), who were disease free and between 9 and 15 months after diagnosis, were allocated to receive follow-up in a cancer clinic according to usual practice (CC arm) or follow-up from their own family physician (FP arm). For patients without recurrence, quality of life (QL) measured by the SF36, patient satisfaction, and patients’ costs were measured every 6 months. For patients with recurrence QL measured by the EORTC QLQ C-30 was measured at the time of recurrence. Results: 483 patients were allocated to the FP arm and 485 to the CC arm. Median follow-up was 3.5 years. There were no significant differences between groups on change scores for SF36 subscales to 24 months, or EORTC functional subscale scores at the time of recurrence. Patients’ costs of follow-up (travel costs, out-of-pocket expenses, and lost earnings) were significantly less to 24 months (p < 0.02) in the FP arm. Although costs were less between 36 and 48 months, these were not significant. Conclusions: Family physician follow-up of breast cancer patients does not have a negative impact on clinical or QL outcomes and is less costly for patients. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".