Berta M Geller1, Heidi D Nelson2, Patricia A Carney3, Donald L Weaver4, Tracy Onega5, Kimberly H Allison6, Paul D Frederick7, Anna N A Tosteson5, Joann G Elmore7. 1. Department of Family Medicine, OHPR, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA. 2. Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. 3. Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. 4. Department of Pathology, University of Vermont and Vermont Cancer Center, Burlington, Vermont, USA. 5. Norris Cotton Cancer Center and The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA. 6. Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA. 7. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: To assess the laboratory policies, pathologists' clinical practice and perceptions about the value of second opinions for breast pathology cases among pathologists practising in the USA. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were collected from 252 pathologists who interpret breast specimens in eight states using a web-based survey. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise findings. RESULTS: Most participants had >10 years of experience interpreting breast specimens (64%), were not affiliated with academic centres (73%) and were not considered experts by their peers (79%). Laboratory policies mandating second opinions varied by diagnosis: invasive cancer 65%; ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) 56%; atypical ductal hyperplasia 36% and other benign cases 33%. 81% obtained second opinions in the absence of policies. Participants believed they improve diagnostic accuracy (96%) and protect from malpractice suits (83%), and were easy to obtain, did not take too much time and did not make them look less adequate. The most common (60%) approach to resolving differences between the first and second opinion is to ask for a third opinion, followed by reaching a consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory-based second opinion policies vary for breast pathology but are most common for invasive cancer and DCIS cases. Pathologists have favourable attitudes towards second opinions, adhere to policies and obtain them even when policies are absent. Those without a formal policy may benefit from supportive clinical practices and systems that help obtain second opinions. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
AIMS: To assess the laboratory policies, pathologists' clinical practice and perceptions about the value of second opinions for breast pathology cases among pathologists practising in the USA. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were collected from 252 pathologists who interpret breast specimens in eight states using a web-based survey. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise findings. RESULTS: Most participants had >10 years of experience interpreting breast specimens (64%), were not affiliated with academic centres (73%) and were not considered experts by their peers (79%). Laboratory policies mandating second opinions varied by diagnosis: invasive cancer 65%; ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) 56%; atypical ductal hyperplasia 36% and other benign cases 33%. 81% obtained second opinions in the absence of policies. Participants believed they improve diagnostic accuracy (96%) and protect from malpractice suits (83%), and were easy to obtain, did not take too much time and did not make them look less adequate. The most common (60%) approach to resolving differences between the first and second opinion is to ask for a third opinion, followed by reaching a consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory-based second opinion policies vary for breast pathology but are most common for invasive cancer and DCIS cases. Pathologists have favourable attitudes towards second opinions, adhere to policies and obtain them even when policies are absent. Those without a formal policy may benefit from supportive clinical practices and systems that help obtain second opinions. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast Cancer; Breast Pathology; Laboratory Management
Authors: Valerie L Staradub; Kathleen A Messenger; Nanjiang Hao; Elizabeth L Wiley; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sudeep Gaudi; J Manuel Zarandona; Stephen S Raab; Joseph C English; Drazen M Jukic Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2012-08-11 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: L E M Duijm; M W J Louwman; J H Groenewoud; L V van de Poll-Franse; J Fracheboud; J W Coebergh Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-03-03 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Kimberly H Allison; Mara H Rendi; Sue Peacock; Tom Morgan; Joann G Elmore; Donald L Weaver Journal: Histopathology Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: 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 Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Berta M Geller; Heidi D Nelson; Donald L Weaver; Paul D Frederick; Kimberly H Allison; Tracy Onega; Patricia A Carney; Anna N A Tosteson; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Sara L Jackson; Paul D Frederick; Margaret S Pepe; Heidi D Nelson; Donald L Weaver; Kimberly H Allison; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Anna N A Tosteson; Tracy Onega; Joann G Elmore Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-12-02 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Melissa Anne Mallory; Katya Losk; Nancy U Lin; Yasuaki Sagara; Robyn L Birdwell; Linda Cutone; Kristen Camuso; Craig Bunnell; Fatih Aydogan; Mehra Golshan Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Berta M Geller; Paul D Frederick; Stevan R Knezevich; Jason P Lott; Heidi D Nelson; Linda J Titus; Patricia A Carney; Anna N A Tosteson; Tracy L Onega; Raymond L Barnhill; Martin A Weinstock; David E Elder; Michael W Piepkorn; Joann G Elmore Journal: Dermatol Surg Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.398
Authors: Mehra Golshan; Katya Losk; Melissa A Mallory; Kristen Camuso; Susan Troyan; Nancy U Lin; Sarah Kadish; Craig A Bunnell Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Paul D Frederick; Lisa M Reisch; Linda Titus; Stevan R Knezevich; Martin A Weinstock; Michael W Piepkorn; Raymond L Barnhill; David E Elder; Donald L Weaver; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Cutan Pathol Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 1.587
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Christopher R Friese; Irina Bondarenko; Reshma Jagsi; Yun Li; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Steven J Katz Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 33.006