Archana Radhakrishnan1, David Grande2, Nandita Mitra3, Justin Bekelman4, Christian Stillson2, Craig Evan Pollack1,5. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer patients are encouraged to obtain second opinions before starting treatment. Little is known about men with localized prostate cancer who seek second opinions, the reasons why, and the association with treatment and quality of care. METHODS: We surveyed men who were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the greater Philadelphia area from 2012 to 2014. Men were asked if they obtained a second opinion from a urologist, and the reasons why. We used multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate the relationship between second opinions and definitive prostate cancer treatment and perceived quality of care. RESULTS: A total of 2386 men responded to the survey (adjusted response rate, 51.1%). After applying exclusion criteria, the final analytic cohort included 2365 respondents. Of these, 40% obtained second opinions, most commonly because they wanted more information about their cancer (50.8%) and wanted to be seen by the best doctor (46.3%). Overall, obtaining second opinions was not associated with definitive treatment or perceived quality of cancer care. Men who sought second opinions because they were dissatisfied with their initial urologist were less likely to receive definitive treatment (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.73), and men who wanted more information about treatment were less likely to report excellent quality of cancer care (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.99) compared with men who did not receive a second opinion. CONCLUSIONS: Although a large proportion of men with localized prostate cancer obtained a second opinion, the reasons for doing so were not associated with treatment choice or perceived quality of cancer care. Future study is needed to determine when second opinions contribute to increasing the value of cancer care. Cancer 2017;123:1027-34.
BACKGROUND:Cancerpatients are encouraged to obtain second opinions before starting treatment. Little is known about men with localized prostate cancer who seek second opinions, the reasons why, and the association with treatment and quality of care. METHODS: We surveyed men who were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the greater Philadelphia area from 2012 to 2014. Men were asked if they obtained a second opinion from a urologist, and the reasons why. We used multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate the relationship between second opinions and definitive prostate cancer treatment and perceived quality of care. RESULTS: A total of 2386 men responded to the survey (adjusted response rate, 51.1%). After applying exclusion criteria, the final analytic cohort included 2365 respondents. Of these, 40% obtained second opinions, most commonly because they wanted more information about their cancer (50.8%) and wanted to be seen by the best doctor (46.3%). Overall, obtaining second opinions was not associated with definitive treatment or perceived quality of cancer care. Men who sought second opinions because they were dissatisfied with their initial urologist were less likely to receive definitive treatment (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.73), and men who wanted more information about treatment were less likely to report excellent quality of cancer care (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.99) compared with men who did not receive a second opinion. CONCLUSIONS: Although a large proportion of men with localized prostate cancer obtained a second opinion, the reasons for doing so were not associated with treatment choice or perceived quality of cancer care. Future study is needed to determine when second opinions contribute to increasing the value of cancer care. Cancer 2017;123:1027-34.
Authors: Karen E Hoffman; Jiangong Niu; Yu Shen; Jing Jiang; John W Davis; Jeri Kim; Deborah A Kuban; George H Perkins; Jay B Shah; Grace L Smith; Robert J Volk; Thomas A Buchholz; Sharon H Giordano; Benjamin D Smith Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Craig Evan Pollack; Afshin Rastegar; Nancy L Keating; John L Adams; Maria Pisu; Katherine L Kahn Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2015-03-11 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Simon P Kim; Cary P Gross; Paul L Nguyen; Marc C Smaldone; Nilay D Shah; R Jeffrey Karnes; R Houston Thompson; Leona C Han; James B Yu; Quoc D Trinh; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Maxine Sun; Jon C Tilburt Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Vincent L Freeman; Ana C Ricardo; Richard T Campbell; Richard E Barrett; Richard B Warnecke Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-07-22 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Scott D Ramsey; Steven B Zeliadt; Catherine R Fedorenko; David K Blough; Carol M Moinpour; Ingrid J Hall; Judith Lee Smith; Donatus U Ekwueme; Megan E Fairweather; Ian M Thompson; Thomas E Keane; David F Penson Journal: World J Urol Date: 2010-10-20 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Eva H DuGoff; Justin E Bekelman; Elizabeth A Stuart; Katrina Armstrong; Craig Evan Pollack Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2014-01-24 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Christina A Clarke; Daphne Y Lichtensztajn; Sharon H Giordano Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: W A M Mellink; A M V Dulmen; Th Wiggers; P M M Spreeuwenberg; A M M Eggermont; J M Bensing Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-04-15 Impact factor: 44.544