Allison W Kurian1, Christopher R Friese2, Irina Bondarenko3, Reshma Jagsi4, Yun Li3, Ann S Hamilton5, Kevin C Ward6, Steven J Katz7. 1. Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California2Departments of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 2. Department of Systems, Populations, and Leadership and Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor. 3. Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 5. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. 6. Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 7. Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor9Department of Internal Medicine, School of Public Health, Division of General Medicine, Univeristy of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Advances in the evaluation and treatment of breast cancer have made the clinical decision-making context much more complex. A second opinion from a medical oncologist may facilitate decision making for women with breast cancer, yet little is known about second opinion use. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the patterns and correlates of second opinion use and the effect on chemotherapy decisions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1901 women newly diagnosed with stages 0 to II breast cancer between July 2013 and September 2014 (response rate, 71.0%) were accrued through 2 population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries (Georgia and Los Angeles County, California) and surveyed about their experiences with medical oncologists, decision making, and chemotherapy use. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Factors associated with second opinion use were evaluated using logistic regression. Also assessed was the association between second opinion and chemotherapy use, adjusting for chemotherapy indication and propensity for receiving a second opinion. Multiple imputation and weighting were used to account for missing data. RESULTS: A total of 1901 patients with stage I to II breast cancer (mean [SD] age, 61.6 [11.0] years; 1071 [56.3%] non-Hispanic white) saw any medical oncologist. Analysis of multiply imputed, weighted data (mean n = 1866) showed that 168 (9.8%) (SE, 0.74%) received a second opinion and 54 (3.2%) (SE, 0.47%) received chemotherapy from the second oncologist. Satisfaction with chemotherapy decisions was high and did not differ between those who did (mean [SD], 4.3 [0.08] on a 1- to 5-point scale) or did not (4.4 [0.03]) obtain a second opinion (P = .29). Predictors of second opinion use included college education vs less education (odds ratio [OR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.24-2.75), frequent use of internet-based support groups (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.12-4.11), an intermediate result on the 21-gene recurrence score assay (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.11-3.09), and a variant of uncertain significance on hereditary cancer genetic testing (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.09-9.59). After controlling for patient and tumor characteristics, second opinion use was not associated with chemotherapy receipt (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.71-1.52). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Second opinion use was low (<10%) among patients with early-stage breast cancer, and high decision satisfaction regardless of second opinion use suggests little unmet demand. Along with educational level and use of internet support groups, uncertain results on genomic testing predicted second opinion use. Patient demand for second opinions may increase as more complex genomic tests are disseminated.
IMPORTANCE: Advances in the evaluation and treatment of breast cancer have made the clinical decision-making context much more complex. A second opinion from a medical oncologist may facilitate decision making for women with breast cancer, yet little is known about second opinion use. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the patterns and correlates of second opinion use and the effect on chemotherapy decisions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1901 women newly diagnosed with stages 0 to II breast cancer between July 2013 and September 2014 (response rate, 71.0%) were accrued through 2 population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries (Georgia and Los Angeles County, California) and surveyed about their experiences with medical oncologists, decision making, and chemotherapy use. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Factors associated with second opinion use were evaluated using logistic regression. Also assessed was the association between second opinion and chemotherapy use, adjusting for chemotherapy indication and propensity for receiving a second opinion. Multiple imputation and weighting were used to account for missing data. RESULTS: A total of 1901 patients with stage I to II breast cancer (mean [SD] age, 61.6 [11.0] years; 1071 [56.3%] non-Hispanic white) saw any medical oncologist. Analysis of multiply imputed, weighted data (mean n = 1866) showed that 168 (9.8%) (SE, 0.74%) received a second opinion and 54 (3.2%) (SE, 0.47%) received chemotherapy from the second oncologist. Satisfaction with chemotherapy decisions was high and did not differ between those who did (mean [SD], 4.3 [0.08] on a 1- to 5-point scale) or did not (4.4 [0.03]) obtain a second opinion (P = .29). Predictors of second opinion use included college education vs less education (odds ratio [OR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.24-2.75), frequent use of internet-based support groups (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.12-4.11), an intermediate result on the 21-gene recurrence score assay (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.11-3.09), and a variant of uncertain significance on hereditary cancer genetic testing (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.09-9.59). After controlling for patient and tumor characteristics, second opinion use was not associated with chemotherapy receipt (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.71-1.52). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Second opinion use was low (<10%) among patients with early-stage breast cancer, and high decision satisfaction regardless of second opinion use suggests little unmet demand. Along with educational level and use of internet support groups, uncertain results on genomic testing predicted second opinion use. Patient demand for second opinions may increase as more complex genomic tests are disseminated.
Authors: Lowell E Schnipper; Gary H Lyman; Douglas W Blayney; J Russell Hoverman; Derek Raghavan; Dana S Wollins; Richard L Schilsky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Gary M Longton; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Heidi D Nelson; Margaret S Pepe; Kimberly H Allison; Stuart J Schnitt; Frances P O'Malley; Donald L Weaver Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Michaela A Dinan; Xiaojuan Mi; Shelby D Reed; Bradford R Hirsch; Gary H Lyman; Lesley H Curtis Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Steven J Katz; Timothy P Hofer; Sarah Hawley; Paula M Lantz; Nancy K Janz; Kendra Schwartz; Lihua Liu; Dennis Deapen; Monica Morrow Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-01-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Daniel J Farrugia; Trevan D Fischer; Daniel Delitto; Lisa R P Spiguel; Christiana M Shaw Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Olivia Pagani; Meredith M Regan; Barbara A Walley; Gini F Fleming; Marco Colleoni; István Láng; Henry L Gomez; Carlo Tondini; Harold J Burstein; Edith A Perez; Eva Ciruelos; Vered Stearns; Hervé R Bonnefoi; Silvana Martino; Charles E Geyer; Graziella Pinotti; Fabio Puglisi; Diana Crivellari; Thomas Ruhstaller; Eric P Winer; Manuela Rabaglio-Poretti; Rudolf Maibach; Barbara Ruepp; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Karen N Price; Jürg Bernhard; Weixiu Luo; Karin Ribi; Giuseppe Viale; Alan S Coates; Richard D Gelber; Aron Goldhirsch; Prudence A Francis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-06-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael J Hassett; Samuel M Silver; Melissa E Hughes; Douglas W Blayney; Stephen B Edge; James G Herman; Clifford A Hudis; P Kelly Marcom; Jane E Pettinga; David Share; Richard Theriault; Yu-Ning Wong; Jonathan L Vandergrift; Joyce C Niland; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Irina Bondarenko; Reshma Jagsi; Christopher R Friese; M Chandler McLeod; Sarah T Hawley; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Timothy P Hofer; Steven J Katz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Kevin C Ward; Ann S Hamilton; Dennis M Deapen; Paul Abrahamse; Irina Bondarenko; Yun Li; Sarah T Hawley; Monica Morrow; Reshma Jagsi; Steven J Katz Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Steven J Katz; Irina Bondarenko; Kevin C Ward; Ann S Hamilton; Monica Morrow; Allison W Kurian; Timothy P Hofer Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Yun Li; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Sarah T Hawley; Monica Morrow; M Chandler McLeod; Reshma Jagsi; Steven J Katz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Steven J Katz; Sarah T Hawley; Irina Bondarenko; Reshma Jagsi; Kevin C Ward; Timothy P Hofer; Allison W Kurian Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-07-08 Impact factor: 4.624
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
Authors: Ronnie Zipkin; Andrew Schaefer; Mary Chamberlin; Tracy Onega; Alistair J O'Malley; Erika L Moen Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-01-16 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Gregory E Idos; Allison W Kurian; Charité Ricker; Duveen Sturgeon; Julie O Culver; Kerry E Kingham; Rachel Koff; Nicolette M Chun; Courtney Rowe-Teeter; Alexandra P Lebensohn; Peter Levonian; Katrina Lowstuter; Katlyn Partynski; Christine Hong; Meredith A Mills; Iva Petrovchich; Cindy S Ma; Anne-Renee Hartman; Brian Allen; Richard J Wenstrup; Johnathan M Lancaster; Krystal Brown; John Kidd; Brent Evans; Bhramar Mukherjee; Kevin J McDonnell; Uri Ladabaum; James M Ford; Stephen B Gruber Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2019-03-28