Display options
Cite
Featherstone CJ, Harnett AN, Brunt AM, et al. Methods of ovarian suppression used in the UK. Breast. 2002;11(1):23-9doi: 10.1054/brst.2001.0356.
Featherstone, C. J., Harnett, A. N., Brunt, A. M., & Johnson, L. (2002). Methods of ovarian suppression used in the UK. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 11(1), 23-9. https://doi.org/10.1054/brst.2001.0356
Featherstone, C J, et al. "Methods of ovarian suppression used in the UK." Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) vol. 11,1 (2002): 23-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1054/brst.2001.0356
Featherstone CJ, Harnett AN, Brunt AM, Johnson L. Methods of ovarian suppression used in the UK. Breast. 2002 Feb;11(1):23-9. doi: 10.1054/brst.2001.0356. PMID: 14965641.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Breast. 2002 Feb;11(1):23-9. doi: 10.1054/brst.2001.0356.

Methods of ovarian suppression used in the UK.

Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland)

C J Featherstone, A N Harnett, A M Brunt, L Johnson

Affiliations

  1. Beatson Oncology Centre, Western Infirmary Glasgow, UK.

PMID: 14965641 DOI: 10.1054/brst.2001.0356

Abstract

Ovarian suppression in the management of breast cancer has had a resurgence in the 1990s. In view of the development of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues and advances in laparoscopic surgery, we wished to determine whether more consultants are considering these methods for achieving ovarian suppression than radiotherapy. A questionnaire was designed to determine the current practice of consultants in the UK and to discover who is involved in making this decision. It was distributed via the Adjuvant Breast Cancer (ABC) trials office to consultants who enter patients into the ABC premenopausal trial. Seventy-four (72%) questionnaires were analysed. The preferred method of treatment was radiotherapy in 60%, surgery in 30% and LHRH analogues in 9%. Seventy-three per cent of consultants were using more than one technique but did not always involve the patient in the decision-making process to determine which treatment modality to use. Radiotherapy techniques used included using bony landmarks for field borders (46%), using a standard field size (20%) or using ultrasound localization (15%).

Publication Types