» Articles » PMID: 28606972

Patient-Driven Second Opinions in Oncology: A Systematic Review

Overview
Journal Oncologist
Specialty Oncology
Date 2017 Jun 14
PMID 28606972
Citations 47
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Although patient-driven second opinions are increasingly sought in oncology, the desirability of this trend remains unknown. Therefore, this systematic review assesses evidence on the motivation for and frequency of requests for second opinions and examines how they evolve and their consequences for oncological practice.

Materials And Methods: Relevant databases were sought using the terms "cancer," "second opinion," and "self-initiated." Included were peer-reviewed articles that reported on patient-initiated second opinions within oncology. Selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed and discussed by two researchers.

Results: Of the 25 included studies, the methodological designs were qualitative ( = 4), mixed ( = 1), or quantitative ( = 20). Study quality was rated high for 10 studies, moderate for eight, and low for seven studies. Reported rates of second opinion seeking ranged from 1%-88%. Higher education was most consistently related to seeking a second opinion. Patients' primary motivations were a perceived need for certainty or confirmation, a lack of trust, dissatisfaction with communication, and/or a need for more (personalized) information. Reported rates of diagnostic or therapeutic discrepancies between the first and second opinions ranged from 2%-51%.

Discussion: Additional studies are required to further examine the medical, practical, and psychological consequences of second opinions for patients and oncologists. Future studies could compare the potential advantages and disadvantages of second opinion seeking, and might offer guidance to patients and physicians to better facilitate the second opinion process. Some practical recommendations are provided for oncologists to optimally discuss and conduct second opinions with their patients. 2017;22:1197-1211 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Although cancer patients increasingly seek a second opinion, the benefits of this process remain unclear. Results of this systematic review suggest that the available studies on this topic are highly variable in both methodology and quality. Moreover, reported rates for a second opinion (1%-88%) as well as for disagreement between the first and second opinion (2%-51%) range widely. The primary motivations of patients are a need for certainty, lack of trust, dissatisfaction with communication, and/or a need for more (personalized) information. Additional research should evaluate how unnecessary second opinions might be avoided. Practical suggestions are provided for oncologists to optimize second opinions.

Citing Articles

Reduced Physical Activity and Increased Weight Status in Children and Adolescents During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review.

Zaccagni L, Gualdi-Russo E Children (Basel). 2025; 12(2).

PMID: 40003280 PMC: 11854173. DOI: 10.3390/children12020178.


Valuing the Societal Impact of Medicines and Other Health Technologies: A User Guide to Current Best Practices.

Shafrin J, Kim J, Cohen J, Garrison L, Goldman D, Doshi J Forum Health Econ Policy. 2024; 27(1):29-116.

PMID: 39512185 PMC: 11567015. DOI: 10.1515/fhep-2024-0014.


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.


Application and Measurement Properties of the Talk Test in Cardiopulmonary Patients: A Systematic Review.

Marques Vieira A, Martins E, Althoff A, Rech D, Ribeiro G, Matte D Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024; 23(7):225.

PMID: 39076925 PMC: 11266803. DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2307225.


Advocate-BREAST80+: A Comprehensive Patient and Advocate-Led Study to Enhance Breast Cancer Care Delivery and Patient-Centered Research in Women Aged ≥80 Years.

OSullivan C, Vierkant R, Larson N, Smith M, Chauhan C, Couch F Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(14).

PMID: 39061134 PMC: 11274918. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16142494.


References
1.
Radhakrishnan A, Grande D, Mitra N, Bekelman J, Stillson C, Pollack C . Second opinions from urologists for prostate cancer: Who gets them, why, and their link to treatment. Cancer. 2017; 123(6):1027-1034. PMC: 5341133. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30412. View

2.
Tattersall M . Can a second medical opinion in a patient with cancer be truly independent?. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2011; 7(1):1-3. DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-7563.2010.01368.x. View

3.
Moumjid N, Gafni A, Bremond A, Carrere M . Seeking a second opinion: do patients need a second opinion when practice guidelines exist?. Health Policy. 2006; 80(1):43-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2006.02.009. View

4.
Parikh A, Kaplan C, Burke N, Livaudais-Toman J, Hwang E, Karliner L . Ductal carcinoma in situ: knowledge of associated risks and prognosis among Latina and non-Latina white women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013; 141(2):261-8. PMC: 4520413. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-013-2676-x. View

5.
Gumus M, Ustaalioglu B, Garip M, Kiziltan E, Bilici A, Seker M . Factors that Affect Patients' Decision-Making about Mastectomy or Breast Conserving Surgery, and the Psychological Effect of this Choice on Breast Cancer Patients. Breast Care (Basel). 2010; 5(3):164-168. PMC: 2931055. DOI: 10.1159/000314266. View