Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2018

06.09.2017 | Epidemiology

Second opinion strategies in breast pathology: a decision analysis addressing over-treatment, under-treatment, and care costs

verfasst von: Anna N. A. Tosteson, Qian Yang, Heidi D. Nelson, Gary Longton, Samir S. Soneji, Margaret Pepe, Berta Geller, Patricia A. Carney, Tracy Onega, Kimberly H. Allison, Joann G. Elmore, Donald L. Weaver

Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Ausgabe 1/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To estimate the potential near-term population impact of alternative second opinion breast biopsy pathology interpretation strategies.

Methods

Decision analysis examining 12-month outcomes of breast biopsy for nine breast pathology interpretation strategies in the U.S. health system. Diagnoses of 115 practicing pathologists in the Breast Pathology Study were compared to reference-standard-consensus diagnoses with and without second opinions. Interpretation strategies were defined by whether a second opinion was sought universally or selectively (e.g., 2nd opinion if invasive). Main outcomes were the expected proportion of concordant breast biopsy diagnoses, the proportion involving over- or under-interpretation, and cost of care in U.S. dollars within one-year of biopsy.

Results

Without a second opinion, 92.2% of biopsies received a concordant diagnosis. Concordance rates increased under all second opinion strategies, and the rate was highest (95.1%) and under-treatment lowest (2.6%) when all biopsies had second opinions. However, over-treatment was lowest when second opinions were sought selectively for initial diagnoses of invasive cancer, DCIS, or atypia (1.8 vs. 4.7% with no 2nd opinions). This strategy also had the lowest projected 12-month care costs ($5.907 billion vs. $6.049 billion with no 2nd opinions).

Conclusions

Second opinion strategies could lower overall care costs while reducing both over- and under-treatment. The most accurate cost-saving strategy required second opinions for initial diagnoses of invasive cancer, DCIS, or atypia.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2015) Improving diagnosis in health care. The National Academies Press, Washington National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2015) Improving diagnosis in health care. The National Academies Press, Washington
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Elmore JG, Longton GM, Carney PA et al (2015) Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens. JAMA 313(11):1122–1132CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Elmore JG, Longton GM, Carney PA et al (2015) Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens. JAMA 313(11):1122–1132CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Elmore JG, Nelson HD, Pepe MS et al (2016) Variability in pathologists’ interpretations of individual breast biopsy slides: a population perspective. Ann Intern Med 164(10):649–655CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Elmore JG, Nelson HD, Pepe MS et al (2016) Variability in pathologists’ interpretations of individual breast biopsy slides: a population perspective. Ann Intern Med 164(10):649–655CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Elmore JG, Tosteson AN, Pepe MS et al (2016) Evaluation of 12 strategies for obtaining second opinions to improve interpretation of breast histopathology: simulation study. BMJ 353:i3069CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Elmore JG, Tosteson AN, Pepe MS et al (2016) Evaluation of 12 strategies for obtaining second opinions to improve interpretation of breast histopathology: simulation study. BMJ 353:i3069CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Plevritis SK, Kurian AW, Sigal BM et al (2006) Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA 295(20):2374–2384CrossRefPubMed Plevritis SK, Kurian AW, Sigal BM et al (2006) Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA 295(20):2374–2384CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Yabroff KR, Lamont EB, Mariotto A et al (2008) Cost of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 100(9):630–641CrossRefPubMed Yabroff KR, Lamont EB, Mariotto A et al (2008) Cost of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 100(9):630–641CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Soot L, Weerasinghe R, Wang L, Nelson HD (2014) Rates and indications for surgical breast biopsies in a community-based health system. Am J Surg 207(4):499–503CrossRefPubMed Soot L, Weerasinghe R, Wang L, Nelson HD (2014) Rates and indications for surgical breast biopsies in a community-based health system. Am J Surg 207(4):499–503CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Silverman M (2009) Where’s the outrage? J Am Coll Surg 208(1):78–79CrossRef Silverman M (2009) Where’s the outrage? J Am Coll Surg 208(1):78–79CrossRef
13.
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Etzioni R, Gulati R (2016) Recognizing the limitations of cancer overdiagnosis studies: a first step towards overcoming them. J Natl Cancer Inst. doi:10.1093/jnci/djv345 Etzioni R, Gulati R (2016) Recognizing the limitations of cancer overdiagnosis studies: a first step towards overcoming them. J Natl Cancer Inst. doi:10.​1093/​jnci/​djv345
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Gulati R, Feuer EJ, Etzioni R (2016) Conditions for valid empirical estimates of cancer overdiagnosis in randomized trials and population studies. Am J Epidemiol 184(2):140–147CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gulati R, Feuer EJ, Etzioni R (2016) Conditions for valid empirical estimates of cancer overdiagnosis in randomized trials and population studies. Am J Epidemiol 184(2):140–147CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Esserman LJ, Thompson IM, Reid B et al (2014) Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change. Lancet Oncol 15(6):e234–242CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Esserman LJ, Thompson IM, Reid B et al (2014) Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change. Lancet Oncol 15(6):e234–242CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Middleton LP, Feeley TW, Albright HW, Walters R, Hamilton SH (2014) Second-opinion pathologic review is a patient safety mechanism that helps reduce error and decrease waste. J Oncol Pract 10(4):275–280CrossRefPubMed Middleton LP, Feeley TW, Albright HW, Walters R, Hamilton SH (2014) Second-opinion pathologic review is a patient safety mechanism that helps reduce error and decrease waste. J Oncol Pract 10(4):275–280CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Khazai L, Middleton LP, Goktepe N, Liu BT, Sahin AA (2015) Breast pathology second review identifies clinically significant discrepancies in over 10% of patients. J Surg Oncol 111(2):192–197CrossRefPubMed Khazai L, Middleton LP, Goktepe N, Liu BT, Sahin AA (2015) Breast pathology second review identifies clinically significant discrepancies in over 10% of patients. J Surg Oncol 111(2):192–197CrossRefPubMed
19.
Metadaten
Titel
Second opinion strategies in breast pathology: a decision analysis addressing over-treatment, under-treatment, and care costs
verfasst von
Anna N. A. Tosteson
Qian Yang
Heidi D. Nelson
Gary Longton
Samir S. Soneji
Margaret Pepe
Berta Geller
Patricia A. Carney
Tracy Onega
Kimberly H. Allison
Joann G. Elmore
Donald L. Weaver
Publikationsdatum
06.09.2017
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Ausgabe 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4432-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.