Second opinions from urologists for prostate cancer: Who gets them, why, and their link to treatment

Integration of Telemedicine Consultation Into a Tertiary Radiation Oncology Department: Predictors of Use, Treatment Yield, and Effects on Patient Population

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid expansion of telemedicine. The implications of telemedicine have not been rigorously studied in radiation oncology, a procedural specialty. This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics of in-person patients (IPPs) and virtual patients (VPs) who presented to a large cancer center before and during the pandemic and to understand variables affecting likelihood of receiving radiotherapy (yield) at our institution.

METHODS

A total of 17,915 patients presenting for new consultation between 2019 and 2021 were included, stratified by prepandemic and pandemic periods starting March 24, 2020. Telemedicine visits included video and telephone calls. Area deprivation indices (ADIs) were also compared.

RESULTS

The overall population was 56% male and 93% White with mean age of 63 years. During the pandemic, VPs accounted for 21% of visits, were on average younger than their in-person (IP) counterparts (63.3 years IP v 62.4 VP), and lived further away from clinic (215 miles IP v 402 VP). Among treated VPs, living closer to clinic was associated with higher yield (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; P < .001). This was also seen among IPPs who received treatment (OR, 0.96; P < .001); however, the average distance from clinic was significantly lower for IPPs than VPs (205 miles IP v 349 VP). Specialized radiotherapy (proton and brachytherapy) was used more in VPs. IPPs had higher ADI than VPs. Among VPs, those treated had higher ADI (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patient characteristics and yield were significantly different between IPPs and VPs. Telemedicine increased reach to patients further away from clinic, including from rural or health care-deprived areas, allowing access to specialized radiation oncology care. Telemedicine has the potential to increase the reach of other technical and procedural specialties.

Patient-provider communication during second opinion consultations in oncology

OBJECTIVE

Providing a second opinion (SO) in oncology is complex, and communication during SOs remains poorly understood. This study aimed to systematically observe how patients and oncologists communicate about SO-specific topics (i.e., patient motivation, the referring oncologist, treatment transfer/back-referral), and how such communication affects patient satisfaction.

METHODS

A prospective mixed-methods study of cancer patients seeking a SO (N = 69) and consulting oncologists was conducted. Before the SO, patients reported their expected place of future treatment. Following the SO, patients' and oncologists' satisfaction was assessed. All SOs were audio-recorded. Absolute and relative duration of SO-specific talk were calculated and specific events (e.g., questions/utterances) were coded (incl. valence, explicitness).

RESULTS

SOs lasted 19-73 min, of which 3.7% was spent discussing motivations. Oncologists rarely explored patients' motivations. Talk about referring oncologists (12.5% of consultation) was mostly critical by patients (M = 43.0%), but positive/confirming by consulting oncologists (M = 73.5%). Although 22.2% of patients expected a treatment transfer, this topic (3.3% of consultation time) was rarely explicitly discussed. Patients who were referred back were significantly less satisfied (d = 0.85).

CONCLUSION

Patient-provider communication in oncological SOs appears insufficiently aligned.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Patients and oncologists need support to explicitly and productively communicate about SO-specific topics and to better manage expectations. Recommendations are provided.

Patient-initiated second medical consultations-patient characteristics and motivating factors, impact on care and satisfaction: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To review the characteristics and motivations of patients seeking second opinions, and the impact of such opinions on patient management, satisfaction and cost effectiveness.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, Medline, PsycINFO and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) databases.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic literature search was performed for terms related to second opinion and patient characteristics. Study quality was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We included articles focused on patient-initiated second opinions, which provided quantitative data on their impact on diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or patient satisfaction, described the characteristics or motivating factors of patients who initiated a second opinion, or the cost-effectiveness of patient-initiated second opinions.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Thirty-three articles were included in the review. 29 studies considered patient characteristics, 19 patient motivating factors, 10 patient satisfaction and 17 clinical agreement between the first and second opinion. Seeking a second opinion was more common in women, middle-age patients, more educated patients; and in people having a chronic condition, with higher income or socioeconomic status or living in central urban areas. Patients seeking a second opinion sought to gain more information or reassurance about their diagnosis or treatment. While many second opinions confirm the original diagnosis or treatment, discrepancies in opinions had a potential major impact on patient outcomes in up to 58% of cases. No studies reported on the cost effectiveness of patient initiated second opinions.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified several demographic factors associated with seeking a second opinion, including age, gender, health status, and socioeconomic status. Differences in opinion received, and in the impact of change in opinion, varies significantly between medical specialties. More research is needed to understand the cost effectiveness of second opinions and identify patient groups most likely to benefit from second opinions.

Reducing uncertainty: motivations and consequences of seeking a second opinion in oncology

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients increasingly seek second opinion (SO) consultations, but there is scarce empirical evidence to substantiate medical and psychological benefits for patients. This is the first study to examine patient- and oncologist-reported (1) motivations and expectations of patients to seek a SO, (2) the perceived medical outcome, and (3) psychological consequences of SOs over time (i.e. patients' uncertainty and anxiety).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This multi-informant longitudinal cohort study (SO-COM) included consecutive cancer patients referred for a SO (N = 70; age 28-85), as well as their referring and consulting oncologists. Outcome measures were completed at three time points: Patients and referring oncologists reported motivations and expectations before the SO (T₀), patients and consulting oncologists reported the medical outcome of the SO (i.e. discrepancy between first and second opinion) immediately following the SO (T₁), and patients reported their uncertainty and anxiety at T₀, T₁, and two months following the SO (T₂).

RESULTS

Cancer patients most frequently reported wanting expert advice, exhausting all options, and/or needing more information as motivations for SOs. Referring oncologists rather accurately anticipated these motivations, except most did not recognize patients' information needs. The vast majority of patients (90.0%) received a medical advice similar to the first opinion, although 65.7% had expected to receive a different opinion. Patients' uncertainty (F = 6.82, p=.002; η² =.22), but not anxiety (F = 3.074, p=.055, η² =.11) was significantly reduced after the SO.

CONCLUSIONS

SOs can yield psychological benefits by reducing patients' uncertainty, but the added medical value remains debatable. Referring oncologists may not be fully aware of their patients' information needs. Patients should be better informed about goals and benefits of SOs to better manage their expectations. More cost-effective ways of optimally providing medically and psychologically valuable SOs need to be explored.

Surgical Delay and Pathological Outcomes for Clinically Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer

IMPORTANCE

There is a lack of data evaluating the association of surgical delay time (SDT) with outcomes in patients with localized, high-risk prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association of SDT of radical prostatectomy and final pathological and survival outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used data from the US National Cancer Database (NCDB) and identified all patients with clinically localized (cT1-2cN0cM0) high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2006 and 2016 who underwent radical prostatectomy. Data analyses were performed from April 1 to April 12, 2020.

EXPOSURES

SDT was defined as the number of days between the initial cancer diagnosis and radical prostatectomy. SDT was categorized into 5 groups: 31 to 60, 61 to 90, 91 to 120, 121 to 150, and 151 to 180 days.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were predetermined as adverse pathological outcomes after radical prostatectomy, including pT3-T4 disease, pN-positive disease, and positive surgical margin. The adverse pathological score (APS) was defined as an accumulated score of the 3 outcomes (0-3). An APS of 2 or higher was considered a separate outcome to capture cases with more aggressive pathological features. The secondary outcome was overall survival.

RESULTS

Of the 32 184 patients included in the study, the median (interquartile range) age was 64 (59-68) years, and 25 548 (79.4%) were non-Hispanic White. Compared with an SDT of 31 to 60 days, longer SDTs were not associated with higher risks of having any adverse pathological outcomes (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.80-1.12; P = .53), pT3-T4 disease (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83-1.17; P = .87), pN-positive disease (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.59-1.06; P = .12), positive surgical margin (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74-1.05; P = .17), or APS greater than or equal to 2 (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.05; P = .17). Longer SDT was also not associated with worse overall survival (for SDT of 151-180 days, hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79-1.59, P = .53). Subgroup analyses performed for patients with very high-risk disease (primary Gleason score 5) and sensitivity analyses with SDT considered as a continuous variable yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy within 180 days of diagnosis for high-risk prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer could be safely delayed up to 6 months after diagnosis.

Second opinions in medical oncology

BACKGROUND

The current study aimed to further our understanding of second opinions among medical oncology patients by examining the proportion of patients who sought a second opinion about their cancer treatment, and why.

METHODS

The study was conducted between 2013 and 2015 in three medical oncology clinics located in public hospitals in Australia: in metropolitan New South Wales, metropolitan Queensland, and in Tasmania. Those patients who provide written informed consent were asked to complete a brief paper and pencil survey in the clinic containing questions on sociodemographic, disease and treatment characteristics. Approximately 1 month later, participants were mailed a second paper and pencil survey which contained questions about whether they had sought a second opinion and their motivation for doing so. Non-responders were followed up by letter at 3 and 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Of 823 patients screened for eligibility, 698 eligible patients, 612 provided consent. Of those who consented, 355 completed both the initial survey and the second survey and were included in the analyses. Of the 57 patients who sought a second opinion, the most frequent reasons given for doing so were the need for reassurance (49.1%) and the need to consider the range of treatment options (41.8%). Of the 297 (83.6%) participants who did not seek a second opinion, the main reason was confidence in the first doctor (88.7%). Only 3.1% patients did not know that they could ask for a second opinion. Occasionally the doctor will initiate the referral for a second opinion.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that a minority of cancer patients seek a second opinion at some phase during their care. Most did so for reassurance or to ensure that they had covered all of the treatment options and not because of discomfort or distrust of their treating doctor. Few patients reported a lack of awareness of second opinions. This suggests that second opinions form part of a patient-centred approach to information provision about care options. Whether the second opinion improves the quality of care or indeed outcomes has been difficult to demonstrate.

Characteristics of Patients Seeking Second Opinions at a Multidisciplinary Colorectal Cancer Clinic

BACKGROUND

Patients seeking second opinions are a challenge for the colorectal cancer provider because of complexity, failed therapeutic relationship with another provider, need for reassurance, and desire for exploration of treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe the patient and treatment characteristics of patients seeking initial and second opinions in colorectal cancer care at a multidisciplinary colorectal cancer clinic.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

A prospectively collected clinical registry of a multidisciplinary colorectal cancer clinic was included.

PATIENTS

The study included patients with colon or rectal cancer seen from 2012 to 2017.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Data were analyzed for initial versus second opinion and demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 1711 patients with colorectal cancer, 1008 (58.9%) sought an initial opinion and 700 (40.9%) sought a second opinion. As compared with initial-opinion patients, second-opinion patients were more likely to have stage IV disease (OR = 1.94 (95% CI, 1.47-2.58)), recurrent disease (OR = 1.67 (95% CI, 1.13-2.46)), and be ages 40 to 49 years (OR = 1.47 (95% CI, 1.02-2.12)). Initial- and second-opinion cohorts were similar in terms of sex, race, and proportion of colon versus rectal cancer. Among second-opinion patients, 246 (35%) transitioned their care to the multidisciplinary colorectal cancer clinic.

LIMITATIONS

We were unable to capture the final treatment plan for those patients who did not transfer care to the multidisciplinary colorectal cancer clinic.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients seeking a second opinion represent a unique subset of patients with colorectal cancer. In general, they are younger and more likely to have stage IV or recurrent disease than patients seeking an initial opinion. Although transfer of care to a multidisciplinary colorectal cancer clinic after second opinion is lower than for initial consultations, multidisciplinary colorectal cancer clinics provide an important role for patients with complex disease characteristics and treatment needs. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B192. CARACTERíSTICAS DE LOS PACIENTES QUE BUSCAN UNA SEGUNDA OPINIóN EN CLíNICAS MULTIDISCIPLINARIAS ESPECIALIZADAS EN CáNCER COLORECTAL: Los pacientes que buscan una segunda opinión son un desafío para el médico que trata el cáncer colorrectal debido a la complejidad de la situación, a la relación terapéutica fallida con otro especialista, a la necesidad de tranquilidad y el deseo de explorar otras opciones del tratamiento.El describir las características y el tratamiento de los pacientes que buscan opiniones iniciales y secundarias en la atención del cáncer colorrectal en una clínica especializada de manera multidisciplinaria en cáncer colorrectal.Este es un estudio de cohortes retrospectivo.Registro clínico de casos obtenidos prospectivamente en una clínica especializada de manera multidisciplinaria en cáncer colorrectal.Todos aquellos pacientes con cáncer de colon o recto examinados entre 2012-2017.Se analizaron los datos obtenidos en la opinión inicial y se compararon con la segunda opinión, se revisaron tanto sus características demográficas como clínicas.De 1711 pacientes con cáncer colorrectal, 1008 (58.9%) buscaron una opinión inicial, 700 (40.9%) buscaron una segunda opinión. En comparación con los pacientes de opinión inicial, los pacientes de segunda opinión presentaron más probabilidades de tener enfermedad en estadio IV (OR 1.94, IC 95% 1.47-2.58), enfermedad recurrente (OR 1.67, IC 95% 1.13-2.46) y tener edades entre 40 y 49 (O 1.47, IC 95% 1.02-2.12). Las cohortes iniciales y de segunda opinión fueron similares en términos de género, raza y proporción del cáncer de colon versus cáncer de recto. Entre los pacientes de segunda opinión, 246 (35%) transfirieron su tratamiento hacia una clínica multidisplinaria especializada en cáncer colorrectal.No se obtuvieron los planes del tratamiento final de aquellos pacientes que no transfirieron sus cuidados hacia una la clínica especializada en cáncer colorrectal.Los pacientes que buscan una segunda opinión representan un subconjunto único de personas con cáncer colorrectal. En general, son más jóvenes y tienen más probabilidades de tener enfermedad en estadio IV o recurrente, con relación a aquellos pacientes que buscan una opinión inicial. Aunque la transferencia de los cuidados hacia una clínica multidisciplinaria especializada en cáncer colorrectal después de una segunda opinión es menor que para las consultas iniciales. Las clínicas multidisciplinarias especializadas en cáncer colorrectal juegan un papel importante con los pacientes que tienen características complejas de enfermedad y necesidades particulares en el tratamiento. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B192. (Traducción-Dr Xavier Delgadillo).

Patient-Driven Second Opinions in Oncology: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Although patient-driven second opinions are increasingly sought in oncology, the desirability of this trend remains unknown. Therefore, this systematic review assesses evidence on the motivation for and frequency of requests for second opinions and examines how they evolve and their consequences for oncological practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Relevant databases were sought using the terms "cancer," "second opinion," and "self-initiated." Included were peer-reviewed articles that reported on patient-initiated second opinions within oncology. Selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed and discussed by two researchers.

RESULTS

Of the 25 included studies, the methodological designs were qualitative (n = 4), mixed (n = 1), or quantitative (n = 20). Study quality was rated high for 10 studies, moderate for eight, and low for seven studies. Reported rates of second opinion seeking ranged from 1%-88%. Higher education was most consistently related to seeking a second opinion. Patients' primary motivations were a perceived need for certainty or confirmation, a lack of trust, dissatisfaction with communication, and/or a need for more (personalized) information. Reported rates of diagnostic or therapeutic discrepancies between the first and second opinions ranged from 2%-51%.

DISCUSSION

Additional studies are required to further examine the medical, practical, and psychological consequences of second opinions for patients and oncologists. Future studies could compare the potential advantages and disadvantages of second opinion seeking, and might offer guidance to patients and physicians to better facilitate the second opinion process. Some practical recommendations are provided for oncologists to optimally discuss and conduct second opinions with their patients. The Oncologist 2017;22:1197-1211 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Although cancer patients increasingly seek a second opinion, the benefits of this process remain unclear. Results of this systematic review suggest that the available studies on this topic are highly variable in both methodology and quality. Moreover, reported rates for a second opinion (1%-88%) as well as for disagreement between the first and second opinion (2%-51%) range widely. The primary motivations of patients are a need for certainty, lack of trust, dissatisfaction with communication, and/or a need for more (personalized) information. Additional research should evaluate how unnecessary second opinions might be avoided. Practical suggestions are provided for oncologists to optimize second opinions.