Is There Evidence for a Better Health Care for Cancer Patients After a Second Opinion? A Systematic Review

Overview

Journal J Cancer Res Clin Oncol

Specialty Oncology

Date 2015 Dec 22

PMID 26687791

Citations 23

Authors

Dana Ruetters

Christian Keinki

Sarah Schroth

Patrick Liebl

Jutta Huebner

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: With growing complexity of diagnostics and therapy, as well as increasing involvement of patients in the decision-making process, there is more and more demand for second opinions in oncology. This literature review aims at analyzing the benefits and risks involved, as well as the tools needed to establish a structured program for second opinion within a modern healthcare system.

Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE and Embase and the databases SocINDEX, ERIC and CINAHL. Thirteen articles met the inclusion criteria and offered a relevant insight into the topic of second opinions.

Results: Depending on the study, between 6.5 and 36 % of patients search for a second opinion, due to a variety of reasons. Changes in diagnosis, treatment recommendations or prognosis as a result of the second opinion occurred in 12-69 % of cases. In 43-82 % of cases, the original diagnosis or treatment was verified. Patient satisfaction was high, and the second opinion was deemed as helpful and reassuring in most cases. Yet, data on patient-relevant outcomes or on the quality of the second opinion are missing.

Conclusion: In general, outcome data on second opinion are divergent and scarce. Yet, with patients' demand for second opinion and influence of second opinion on treatment decisions, a structured, high quality and transparent second-opinion program seems mandatory. Such a program may support patient-physician communication and improve the flow of information, as well as decision-making. Its evaluation should be independent from the provider of the second opinion.

Citing Articles

Surgical Second Opinion for Pancreatic Cancer Patients.

Quinn P, Nikahd M, Saiyed S, Heifetz A, Bath N, Hyer J J Am Coll Surg. 2024; 240(3):270-278.

PMID: 39297812 PMC: 11828680. DOI: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000001213.

Use of complementary therapies and supportive measures of patients with intracranial gliomas-a prospective evaluation in an outpatient clinic.

Ottenhausen M, Renovanz M, Bartz I, Poplawski A, Kalasauskas D, Krenzlin H J Neurooncol. 2024; 168(3):507-513.

PMID: 38709354 PMC: 11186898. DOI: 10.1007/s11060-024-04696-1.

A qualitative study of teleconsultation practices among French oncologists in a post-COVID-19 period.

Lantheaume S, Doublet L, Mory J, Durand T, Lebosse W, Heudel P Digit Health. 2023; 9:20552076231215906.

PMID: 38033511 PMC: 10685777. DOI: 10.1177/20552076231215906.

Benefits versus drawbacks of delaying surgery due to additional consultations in older patients with breast cancer.

Egleston B, Bleicher R, Fang C, Galloway T, Vucetic S Cancer Rep (Hoboken). 2023; 6(5):e1805.

PMID: 36943210 PMC: 10172180. DOI: 10.1002/cnr2.1805.

Clinical value of second opinions in oncology: A retrospective review of changes in diagnosis and treatment recommendations.

Lipitz-Snyderman A, Chimonas S, Mailankody S, Kim M, Silva N, Kriplani A Cancer Med. 2023; 12(7):8063-8072.

PMID: 36737878 PMC: 10134380. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.5598.

References

Tam K, Cheng D, Ng T, Ngan H . The behaviors of seeking a second opinion from other health-care professionals and the utilization of complementary and alternative medicine in gynecologic cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2005; 13(9):679-84. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-005-0841-4. View

Keinki C, Seilacher E, Ebel M, Ruetters D, Kessler I, Stellamanns J . Information Needs of Cancer Patients and Perception of Impact of the Disease, of Self-Efficacy, and Locus of Control. J Cancer Educ. 2015; 31(3):610-6. DOI: 10.1007/s13187-015-0860-x. View

Ramsey S, Zeliadt S, Fedorenko C, Blough D, Moinpour C, Hall I . Patient preferences and urologist recommendations among local-stage prostate cancer patients who present for initial consultation and second opinions. World J Urol. 2010; 29(1):3-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-010-0602-y. View

Clauson J, Hsieh Y, Acharya S, Rademaker A, Morrow M . Results of the Lynn Sage Second-Opinion Program for local therapy in patients with breast carcinoma. Changes in management and determinants of where care is delivered. Cancer. 2002; 94(4):889-94. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.10318. View

Philip J, Gold M, Schwarz M, Komesaroff P . An exploration of the dynamics and influences upon second medical opinion consultations in cancer care. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2011; 7(1):41-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-7563.2010.01330.x. View

Schmidmaier R . [Cancer--the desire for a second opinion is prompted by a need for orientation]. MMW Fortschr Med. 2007; 148(49-50):31-3. View

Mellink W, Dulmen A, Wiggers T, Spreeuwenberg P, Eggermont A, Bensing J . Cancer patients seeking a second surgical opinion: results of a study on motives, needs, and expectations. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21(8):1492-7. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2003.12.058. View

Zengerling F, Hartmann M, Heidenreich A, Krege S, Albers P, Karl A . German second-opinion network for testicular cancer: sealing the leaky pipe between evidence and clinical practice. Oncol Rep. 2014; 31(6):2477-81. PMC: 4055348. DOI: 10.3892/or.2014.3153. View

Payne V, Singh H, Meyer A, Levy L, Harrison D, Graber M . Patient-initiated second opinions: systematic review of characteristics and impact on diagnosis, treatment, and satisfaction. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014; 89(5):687-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.02.015. View

10.

Zysman M, Clement-Duchene C, Nguyen-Thi P, Carnin C, Martinet Y . [Evaluation of requests for a second medical opinion by patients with lung cancer]. Rev Mal Respir. 2014; 31(5):412-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.rmr.2013.09.004. View

11.

Husson O, Mols F, van de Poll-Franse L . The relation between information provision and health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression among cancer survivors: a systematic review. Ann Oncol. 2010; 22(4):761-772. PMC: 3065875. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdq413. View

12.

Rudolph I, Seilacher E, Koster M, Stellamanns J, Liebl P, Zell J . [Survey on information needs of cancer patients and their relatives in Germany]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2015; 140(5):e43-7. DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-100585. View

13.

Nagler R, Gray S, Romantan A, Kelly B, DeMichele A, Armstrong K . Differences in information seeking among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer patients: results from a population-based survey. Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 81 Suppl:S54-62. PMC: 2993788. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.09.010. View

14.

Morrow M, Jagsi R, Alderman A, Griggs J, Hawley S, Hamilton A . Surgeon recommendations and receipt of mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer. JAMA. 2009; 302(14):1551-6. PMC: 4137962. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.1450. View

15.

Philip J, Gold M, Schwarz M, Komesaroff P . Second medical opinions: the views of oncology patients and their physicians. Support Care Cancer. 2009; 18(9):1199-205. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-009-0742-z. View

16.

Feldman-Stewart D, Brennenstuhl S, Brundage M, Siemens D . Overall information needs of early-stage prostate cancer patients over a decade: highly variable and remarkably stable. Support Care Cancer. 2008; 17(4):429-35. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-008-0514-1. View

17.

Tattersall M, Dear R, Jansen J, Shepherd H, Devine R, Horvath L . Second opinions in oncology: the experiences of patients attending the Sydney Cancer Centre. Med J Aust. 2009; 191(4):209-12. DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02754.x. View

18.

Denberg T, Melhado T, Steiner J . Patient treatment preferences in localized prostate carcinoma: The influence of emotion, misconception, and anecdote. Cancer. 2006; 107(3):620-30. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22033. View

19.

Mellink W, Henzen-Logmans S, Bongaerts A, Ooijen B, Rodenburg C, Wiggers T . Discrepancy between second and first opinion in surgical oncological patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2005; 32(1):108-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2005.08.007. View

20.

Mistry A, Wilson S, Priestman T, Damery S, Haque M . How do the information needs of cancer patients differ at different stages of the cancer journey? A cross-sectional survey. JRSM Short Rep. 2010; 1(4):30. PMC: 2984359. DOI: 10.1258/shorts.2010.010032. View