RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To prospectively describe in a population of oncological second opinion patients: (1) the outcome of routine revisions of histopathological and radiological material, (2) the frequency and extent of discrepancy between the second and first opinion and (3) the location of further treatment or follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a population of 466 consecutive patients seeking a second opinion at the Surgical Oncology Outpatient Clinic, demographic and clinical patient characteristics were registered prospectively, as were the results of routine revision of histopathological and radiological material and the location of further treatment or follow-up. A classification system was developed to categorize the differences between the second and first opinion. RESULTS: The mean age of the 403 eligible patients was 52 years. Most patients (87%) were women, of whom 83% were diagnosed with breast cancer. Revision of histopathological and radiological material was performed in 80 and 61% of the cases, respectively, and resulted in a major change in treatment or prognosis in 3 and 2% of patients, respectively. In 317 patients (79%), the second opinion could be compared with the first opinion, resulting in an identical advise in 68%, a minor discrepancy in 16% and a major discrepancy in another 16% of patients. For further treatment 78% of patients were referred back to their first specialist. CONCLUSION: One third of patient-initiated second opinion consultations resulted in a discrepancy with the first opinion. Half of these different advise lead to major changes in therapy or prognosis.
Asunto(s)
Oncología Médica/clasificación , Neoplasias/cirugía , Derivación y Consulta/clasificación , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Participación del Paciente , Pronóstico , Estudios Prospectivos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To explore the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of cancer patients seeking a second-opinion consultation and to analyze their second opinion-related motives, needs, and expectations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 212 consecutive patients seeking a second opinion at the Surgical Oncology Outpatient Clinic, satisfaction with the first specialist, motivation for the second opinion, need for information, preference for decision participation, and hope for and expectation of a different second opinion were assessed with a questionnaire. RESULTS: The mean age was 53 years. Most patients were women (82%), of whom 76% were diagnosed with breast cancer. Half of the patients (51%) had a low educational level. The majority of patients (62%) only had internal motives for second-opinion seeking associated with the need for reassurance and more certainty, whereas a substantial minority of patients (38%) also had external motives related to negative experiences or unfulfilled needs. The externally motivated patients had a higher anxiety disposition, were less satisfied with their first specialist, preferred a more active role in medical decision making, and more often hoped for and expected a different second opinion. CONCLUSION: Motives for second-opinion consultations differ greatly. Understanding the difference between internal and external motivation is necessary to develop strategies to prevent unnecessary second-opinion seeking. Additional studies are warranted to evaluate the objective and subjective outcomes of second-opinion consultations.