Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Breast cancer care is becoming increasingly complex, and patients with breast cancer are increasingly aware of the different treatment options, resulting in requests for second opinions (SOs). The current study investigates the impact of breast cancer SOs on final diagnosis and treatment in the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NCI) using a newly designed Breast Cancer Second Opinion (BCSO) classification system.
Patients who visited the NCI for an SO between October 2015 and September 2016 were included. Demographics, diagnostics, and treatment proposals were compared between first and SO. Discrepancy was categorized using our BCSO classification system, categorizing SOs into (1) noncomparable, (2) identical, and (3) minor or (4) major discrepancy.
The majority of SOs (n = 591) were patient initiated (90.7%). A total of 121 patients underwent treatment prior to their SO, leaving 470 patients for assessment of discrepancies according to our BCSO classification system. More than 45% of these SOs resulted in at least one discrepancy, with comparable rates for physician- and patient-initiated SOs (42.5% vs. 45.6%, p = 0.708). Significantly more discrepancies were observed in patients with additional imaging (51.3% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.002) and biopsies (53.7% vs. 40.3%, p = 0.005). Almost 60% of all discrepancies were categorized as major (neoadjuvant systemic treatment instead of primary surgery, breast-conserving surgery instead of mastectomy, and proposing postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction).
Our findings show substantial differences in diagnostic and treatment options in breast cancer patients visiting the Netherlands Cancer Institute for an SO, thereby emphasizing more consensus for the indications of these treatment modalities.
Newman EA, Guest AB, Helvie MA, et al. Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board. Cancer. 2006;107(10):2346–51. CrossRef
Kesson EM, Allardice GM, George WD, et al. Effects of multidisciplinary team working on breast cancer survival: retrospective, comparative, interventional cohort study of 13,722 women. BMJ. 2012;344:e2718. CrossRef
Farrugia DJ, Fischer TD, Delitto D, et al. Improved breast cancer care quality metrics after implementation of a standardized tumor board documentation template. J Oncol Pract. 2015;11(5):421–3. CrossRef
Garcia D, Spruill LS, Irshad A, et al. The value of a second opinion for breast cancer patients referred to a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer center with a multidisciplinary breast tumor board. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(10):2953–57. CrossRef
Coffey K, Mango V, Keating DM, et al. The impact of patient-initiated subspecialty review on patient care. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(8):1109–15. CrossRef
Nederland Z. Openbaar databestand MSZ verslagjaar 2017. https://www.zorginzicht.nl/opendata/Paginas/aangeleverdebestanden.aspx?sub=1&fLvlT=Openbare%20data&subIdx=0. Accessed 12 Jul 2018.
Mellink WA, Henzen-Logmans SC, Bongaerts AH, et al. Discrepancy between second and first opinion in surgical oncological patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006;32(1):108–12. CrossRef
Mellink WA, Dulmen AM, Wiggers T, et al. Cancer patients seeking a second surgical opinion: results of a study on motives, needs, and expectations. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(8):1492–7. CrossRef
Hillen MA, Medendorp NM, Daams JG, et al. Patient-driven second opinions in oncology: a systematic review. Oncologist. 2017;22(10):1197–211. CrossRef
Groß SE, Hillen MA, Pfaff H, et al. Second opinion in medical encounters—A study among breast cancer patients. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(11):1990–5. CrossRef
Moumjid N, Gafni A, Bremond A, et al. Seeking a second opinion: do patients need a second opinion when practice guidelines exist? Health Policy. 2007;80(1):43–50. CrossRef
Philip J, Gold M, Schwarz M, et al. Second medical opinions: the views of oncology patients and their physicians. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18(9):1199–205. CrossRef
Kurian AW, Friese CR, Bondarenko I, et al. Second opinions from medical oncologists for early-stage breast cancer: prevalence, correlates, and consequences. JAMA Oncol. 2016;3:391–7 CrossRef
Morrow M, Jagsi R, Alderman AK, et al. Surgeon recommendations and receipt of mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer. JAMA. 2009;302(14):1551–6. CrossRef
Cecon N, Hillen MA, Pfaff H, et al. Why do newly diagnosed breast cancer patients seek a second opinion?—Second opinion seeking and its association with the physician-patient relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;102:998–1004. CrossRef
Nederland Z. Second opinion in de Zorgverzekeringswet. In Ministerie van Volksgezondheid WeS, ed., 2015.
Golshan M, Losk K, Mallory MA, et al. Variation in additional breast imaging orders and impact on surgical wait times at a comprehensive cancer center. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(Suppl 3):S428–34. CrossRef
Golshan M, Losk K, Kadish S, et al. Understanding process-of-care delays in surgical treatment of breast cancer at a comprehensive cancer center. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014;148(1):125–33. CrossRef
Coffey K, D’Alessio D, Keating DM, et al. Second-opinion review of breast imaging at a cancer center: is it worthwhile? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(6):1386–91. CrossRef
Spivey TL, Carlson KA, Janssen I, et al. Breast imaging second opinions impact surgical management. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(7):2359–64. CrossRef
Mallory MA, Losk K, Lin NU, et al. The influence of radiology image consultation in the surgical management of breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3383–8. CrossRef
Weinfurtner RJ, Niell B, Mekhail Y, et al. Specialized second opinion interpretations of breast imaging: impact on additional workup and management. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18:e1031–36 CrossRef
Khazai L, Middleton LP, Goktepe N, et al. Breast pathology second review identifies clinically significant discrepancies in over 10% of patients. J Surg Oncol. 2015;111(2):192–7. CrossRef
Marco V, Muntal T, García-Hernandez F, et al. Changes in breast cancer reports after pathology second opinion. Breast J. 2014;20(3):295–301. CrossRef
Staradub VL, Messenger KA, Hao N, et al. Changes in breast cancer therapy because of pathology second opinions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9(10):982–7. CrossRef
Chang JH, Vines E, Bertsch H, et al. The impact of a multidisciplinary breast cancer center on recommendations for patient management: the University of Pennsylvania experience. Cancer. 2001;91(7):1231–7. CrossRef
Spronk PER, de Ligt KM, van Bommel ACM, et al. Current decisions on neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer: Experts’ experiences in the Netherlands. Patient Educ Couns 2018;101(12):2111–5. CrossRef
Spronk PER, van Bommel ACM, Siesling S, et al. Variation in use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III breast cancer: Results of the Dutch national breast cancer audit. Breast. 2017;36:34–8. CrossRef
Heeg E, Schreuder K, Spronk PER, et al. Hospital transfer after a breast cancer diagnosis: A population-based study in the Netherlands of the extent, predictive characteristics and its impact on time to treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;45:560–6. CrossRef
Schaverien MV, Macmillan RD, McCulley SJ. Is immediate autologous breast reconstruction with postoperative radiotherapy good practice? A systematic review of the literature. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66(12):1637–51. CrossRef
Berbers J, van Baardwijk A, Houben R, et al. Reconstruction: before or after postmastectomy radiotherapy? A systematic review of the literature. Eur J Cancer 2014;50(16):2752–62. CrossRef
Wevers MR, Schmidt MK, Engelhardt EG, et al. Timing of risk reducing mastectomy in breast cancer patients carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation: retrospective data from the Dutch HEBON study. Fam Cancer. 2015;14(3):355–63. CrossRef
- Impact of Second Opinions in Breast Cancer Diagnostics and Treatment: A Retrospective Analysis
Y. A. Civil
M. A. Hillen
C. H. Smorenburg
L. A. E. Woerdeman
E. J. Groen
H. A. O. Winter-Warnars
M. T. F. D. Vrancken Peeters
- Springer International Publishing
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-4681
Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie
e.Med Kampagnen-Visual, Mail Icon II