BACKGROUND: Patients referred to comprehensive cancer centers arrive with clinical data requiring review. Radiology consultation for second opinions often generates additional imaging requests; however, the impact of this service on breast cancer management remains unclear. We sought to identify the incidence of additional imaging requests and the effect additional imaging has on patients' ultimate surgical management. METHODS: Between November 2013 and March 2014, 153 consecutive patients with breast cancer received second opinion imaging reviews and definitive surgery at our cancer center. We identified the number of additional imaging requests, the number of fulfilled requests, the modality of additional imaging completed, the number of biopsies performed, and the number of patients whose management was altered due to additional imaging results. RESULTS: Of 153 patients, the mean age was 55 years; 98.9% were female; 23.5% (36) had in situ carcinoma (35 DCIS/1 LCIS), and 76.5% (117) had invasive carcinoma. Additional imaging was suggested for 47.7% (73/153) of patients. After multidisciplinary consultation, 65.8% (48/73) of patients underwent additional imaging. Imaging review resulted in biopsy in 43.7% (21/48) of patients and ultimately altered preliminary treatment plans in 37.5% (18/48) of patients (Fig. 1). Changes in management included: conversion to mastectomy or breast conservation, neoadjuvant therapy, additional wire placement, and need for contralateral breast surgery. Fig. 1 Impact of second-opinion imaging reviews on the management of breast cancer patients CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of second opinion imaging consultation demonstrates the significant value that this service has on breast cancer management. Overall, 11.7% (18/153) of patients who underwent breast surgery had management changes as a consequence of radiologic imaging review.
BACKGROUND:Patients referred to comprehensive cancer centers arrive with clinical data requiring review. Radiology consultation for second opinions often generates additional imaging requests; however, the impact of this service on breast cancer management remains unclear. We sought to identify the incidence of additional imaging requests and the effect additional imaging has on patients' ultimate surgical management. METHODS: Between November 2013 and March 2014, 153 consecutive patients with breast cancer received second opinion imaging reviews and definitive surgery at our cancer center. We identified the number of additional imaging requests, the number of fulfilled requests, the modality of additional imaging completed, the number of biopsies performed, and the number of patients whose management was altered due to additional imaging results. RESULTS: Of 153 patients, the mean age was 55 years; 98.9% were female; 23.5% (36) had in situ carcinoma (35 DCIS/1 LCIS), and 76.5% (117) had invasive carcinoma. Additional imaging was suggested for 47.7% (73/153) of patients. After multidisciplinary consultation, 65.8% (48/73) of patients underwent additional imaging. Imaging review resulted in biopsy in 43.7% (21/48) of patients and ultimately altered preliminary treatment plans in 37.5% (18/48) of patients (Fig. 1). Changes in management included: conversion to mastectomy or breast conservation, neoadjuvant therapy, additional wire placement, and need for contralateral breast surgery. Fig. 1 Impact of second-opinion imaging reviews on the management of breast cancerpatients CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of second opinion imaging consultation demonstrates the significant value that this service has on breast cancer management. Overall, 11.7% (18/153) of patients who underwent breast surgery had management changes as a consequence of radiologic imaging review.
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: Erika A Newman; Amy B Guest; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Alfred E Chang; Celina G Kleer; Kathleen M Diehl; Vincent M Cimmino; Lori Pierce; Daniel Hayes; Lisa A Newman; Michael S Sabel Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: J H Chang; E Vines; H Bertsch; D L Fraker; B J Czerniecki; E F Rosato; T Lawton; E F Conant; S G Orel; L Schuchter; K R Fox; N Zieber; J H Glick; L J Solin Journal: Cancer Date: 2001-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Tara Lynn Spivey; Kjirsten Ayn Carlson; Imke Janssen; Thomas R Witt; Peter Jokich; Andrea Madrigrano Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Berta M Geller; Heidi D Nelson; Patricia A Carney; Donald L Weaver; Tracy Onega; Kimberly H Allison; Paul D Frederick; Anna N A Tosteson; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Sara L Jackson; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles; Linn Abraham; William E Barlow; Patricia A Carney; Berta Geller; Eric A Berns; Gary R Cutter; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-05-26 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Carol E DeSantis; Chun Chieh Lin; Angela B Mariotto; Rebecca L Siegel; Kevin D Stein; Joan L Kramer; Rick Alteri; Anthony S Robbins; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2014-06-01 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Sven Y Vetter; Svenja Schüler; Matthes Hackbusch; Michael Müller; Benedict Swartman; Marc Schnetzke; Paul Alfred Grützner; Jochen Franke Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 4.056
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: Pamela J DiPiro; Katherine M Krajewski; Angela A Giardino; Marta Braschi-Amirfarzan; Nikhil H Ramaiya Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: E Heeg; 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 Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 5.344