Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: After treatment of a basal cell carcinoma (BCC) patients are at risk of recurrence of that BCC; also, patients who have had a primary BCC are those who have an increased risk of developing a subsequent primary BCC. However, long-term hospital-based follow-up of all patients would put large strains on the U.K. health service. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the follow-up intentions of U.K. dermatologists for well-defined facial BCC and to investigate the effect that variations in site and clinical indicators might have on those intentions. METHODS: A self-completion questionnaire relating to BCC follow-up sent to 388 dermatology consultants and associate specialists in the U.K. had a response rate of 68%. The effects of treatment modality, tumour site, histology, multiple lesions and various patient variables that might alter the likelihood of follow-up were examined. General views on the subject of BCC follow-up were sought. RESULTS: Twenty-seven per cent of respondents reported that they would not review further after excision of a 'well-defined' BCC from inside a central 'T' area on the face; 37% reported that they would review on one occasion; and 36% reported that they review more than once. CONCLUSIONS: While it is currently not feasible to follow-up all treated BCCs, a strategy to identify and monitor high-risk patients and a system to gather long-term outcome data prospectively are necessary aspects of a national health service. This study illustrates that the first issue is being addressed to some extent, but at the currently reported level of BCC follow-up in the U.K. there is little scope for collecting comprehensive long-term data on outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bower et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: