{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017062314540059347, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.363207547169812, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On completion of curative treatment of head and neck cancer: why follow up?

Purpose of reviewTo review the rationale and evidence for maintaining clinical contact with patients who have received curative treatment for head and neck cancer. Recent findingsVery little work has been published in the scientific literature on this subject. Most information regarding follow-up care has focused on survival outcomes rather than the rationale for, or cost-effectiveness of, routine surveillance of head and neck cancer patients. Perhaps this is because there seems to be very little controversy. A large survey of surgeons has revealed a diminishing frequency of follow-up with time after treatment, although with variance in respect of specific investigations such as bone scans. Notwithstanding the current paper identifies areas that need to be considered when decisions are made regarding the scheduling of follow-up appointments SummaryRegular post-treatment surveillance is important for patients’ general well-being and for the management of late complications of treatment in long-term survivors. It is unclear whether surveillance provides any survival advantage; this information requires the sort of clinical trial that has been conducted for tumors at other sites, such as colorectal cancer and breast cancer, but not head and neck cancers.