Michael P Lux1,2, Sonja Wasner1, Julia Meyer1, Lothar Häberle1, Carolin C Hack1, Sebastian Jud1, Alexander Hein1, Marius Wunderle1, Julius Emons1, Paul Gass1, Peter A Fasching1, Sainab Egloffstein3, Jessica Krebs4, Yesim Erim4, Matthias W Beckmann1,3, Christian R Loehberg1. 1. Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, University Breast Center and University Gynecological Cancer Center for Franconia, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. 2. Breast and Gynecological Cancer Center, Women's Hospital St. Louise, and St. Josefs-Krankenhaus Salzkotten, St. Vincenz Hospital GmbH Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany. 3. Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen - European Metropolitan Region Nürnberg (CCC Erlangen-EMN), Erlangen, Germany. 4. Department of Psychosomatic and Psychotherapeutic, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Oncological second opinions are becoming increasingly important in the era of complex treatments and established certified cancer centers. Oncological guidelines with the highest levels of evidence are available, but these can only be effective to the extent that they are implemented. Therefore, we analyzed the effects of second opinions with regard to their agreement with first opinions and conformity with guidelines. METHODS: In 164 patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer or gynecological malignancy who requested a second opinion, the first and second opinions, established at the interdisciplinary tumor conference, and conformity with the guidelines were evaluated. RESULTS: The first opinion was not in agreement with the guidelines in 34.8% (15.2% diagnosis, 12.8% surgical therapy, 13.4% systemic therapy, and 5.5% radiotherapy), and the recommendations were optimized in the second opinion in 56.7% (28.7% diagnosis, 15.9% surgical therapy, 30.5% systemic therapy, and 8.5% radiotherapy). CONCLUSIONS: Oncological second opinions showed significant effects and one-third of first opinions were not in conformity with the guidelines. In a significant proportion of cases, the existing treatment plan was changed or supplemented to allow modern and individualized treatment approaches.
INTRODUCTION: Oncological second opinions are becoming increasingly important in the era of complex treatments and established certified cancer centers. Oncological guidelines with the highest levels of evidence are available, but these can only be effective to the extent that they are implemented. Therefore, we analyzed the effects of second opinions with regard to their agreement with first opinions and conformity with guidelines. METHODS: In 164 patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer or gynecological malignancy who requested a second opinion, the first and second opinions, established at the interdisciplinary tumor conference, and conformity with the guidelines were evaluated. RESULTS: The first opinion was not in agreement with the guidelines in 34.8% (15.2% diagnosis, 12.8% surgical therapy, 13.4% systemic therapy, and 5.5% radiotherapy), and the recommendations were optimized in the second opinion in 56.7% (28.7% diagnosis, 15.9% surgical therapy, 30.5% systemic therapy, and 8.5% radiotherapy). CONCLUSIONS: Oncological second opinions showed significant effects and one-third of first opinions were not in conformity with the guidelines. In a significant proportion of cases, the existing treatment plan was changed or supplemented to allow modern and individualized treatment approaches.
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: Monica Morrow; Reshma Jagsi; Amy K Alderman; Jennifer J Griggs; Sarah T Hawley; Ann S Hamilton; John J Graff; Steven J Katz Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Achim Wöckel; Jasmin Festl; Tanja Stüber; Katharina Brust; Mathias Krockenberger; Peter U Heuschmann; Steffi Jírů-Hillmann; Ute-Susann Albert; Wilfried Budach; Markus Follmann; Wolfgang Janni; Ina Kopp; Rolf Kreienberg; Thorsten Kühn; Thomas Langer; Monika Nothacker; Anton Scharl; Ingrid Schreer; Hartmut Link; Jutta Engel; Tanja Fehm; Joachim Weis; Anja Welt; Anke Steckelberg; Petra Feyer; Klaus König; Andrea Hahne; Traudl Baumgartner; Hans H Kreipe; Wolfram Trudo Knoefel; Michael Denkinger; Sara Brucker; Diana Lüftner; Christian Kubisch; Christina Gerlach; Annette Lebeau; Friederike Siedentopf; Cordula Petersen; Hans Helge Bartsch; Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Markus Hahn; Volker Hanf; Markus Müller-Schimpfle; Ulla Henscher; Renza Roncarati; Alexander Katalinic; Christoph Heitmann; Christoph Honegger; Kerstin Paradies; Vesna Bjelic-Radisic; Friedrich Degenhardt; Frederik Wenz; Oliver Rick; Dieter Hölzel; Matthias Zaiss; Gudrun Kemper; Volker Budach; Carsten Denkert; Bernd Gerber; Hans Tesch; Susanne Hirsmüller; Hans-Peter Sinn; Jürgen Dunst; Karsten Münstedt; Ulrich Bick; Eva Fallenberg; Reina Tholen; Roswita Hung; Freerk Baumann; Matthias W Beckmann; Jens Blohmer; Peter Fasching; Michael P Lux; Nadia Harbeck; Peyman Hadji; Hans Hauner; Sylvia Heywang-Köbrunner; Jens Huober; Jutta Hübner; Christian Jackisch; Sibylle Loibl; Hans-Jürgen Lück; Gunter von Minckwitz; Volker Möbus; Volkmar Müller; Ute Nöthlings; Marcus Schmidt; Rita Schmutzler; Andreas Schneeweiss; Florian Schütz; Elmar Stickeler; Christoph Thomssen; Michael Untch; Simone Wesselmann; Arno Bücker; Andreas Buck; Stephanie Stangl Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Peter Hillemanns; Klaus Friese; Christian Dannecker; Stefanie Klug; Ulrike Seifert; Thomas Iftner; Juliane Hädicke; Thomas Löning; Lars Horn; Dietmar Schmidt; Hans Ikenberg; Manfred Steiner; Ulrich Freitag; Uwe Siebert; Gaby Sroczynski; Willi Sauerbrei; Matthias W Beckmann; Marion Gebhardt; Michael Friedrich; Karsten Münstedt; Achim Schneider; Andreas Kaufmann; K Ulrich Petry; Axel P A Schäfer; Michael Pawlita; Joachim Weis; Anja Mehnert; Mathias Fehr; Christoph Grimm; Olaf Reich; Marc Arbyn; Jos Kleijnen; Simone Wesselmann; Monika Nothacker; Markus Follmann; Thomas Langer; Matthias Jentschke Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2019-02-18 Impact factor: 2.915