[Importance of second opinions on histology of prostate biopsy specimens]

Does the second opinion directive in Germany reach the patient? A parallel-convergent mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

A Second Opinion Directive (SOD) was introduced in Germany in December 2018 for elective surgeries such as hysterectomy, tonsillotomy, tonsillectomy, and shoulder arthroscopy. The aim of the SOD is to avoid surgeries which are not medically induced and to support patients in their decision-making process. A physician who indicates an SOD-relevant procedure must inform the patient about the SOD and its specifications. At this time, it is not clear whether physicians provide information about the SOD to patients and whether and how the SOD is implemented in daily practice. Furthermore, nothing is known about how patients react when they are told that they have the right to seek a second opinion according to the SOD.

METHODS

To assess this, we undertook a parallel-convergent mixed-methods study with a qualitative and quantitative phase. Qualitative data were analysed by structured qualitative content analysis and survey data were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

26 interviews were conducted with patients for whom one of the above-mentioned surgeries was indicated. In parallel, a questionnaire survey with 102 patients was conducted. The results show that the SOD is not implemented in Germany for the selected indications because patients were not informed as intended. At the same time, when the right to obtain a second opinion was explained, it seemed to have a positive effect on the physician-patient relationship from patients` perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible that there is a lack of information for physicians, which in turn leads to an information deficit for patients. Better information for physicians might be part of the solution, but a negative attitude towards the SOD might also result in the low education rate. Therefore, in addition, potential patients or even the general population should be better informed about the possibility of obtaining a second opinion.

Telemedical Second Opinions in Germany: A Customer Survey of an Online Portal

Introduction: Second medical opinions (SOs) can strengthen patients' certainty in decision making. In Germany, both personally delivered and telemedical SOs (often based on documents only) are provided. Our aim was to analyze the experiences of people who obtained telemedical SOs. We also investigated different routes of SO delivery (personally/by phone/documents only). Materials and Methods: German residents who obtained a telemedical SO via an online portal between January 2016 and February 2019 (n = 1,247) were contacted by post between August and November 2019 up to three times. The results were analyzed descriptively. Results: The 368 participants (response rate 30%) were 54% male, 95% statutory health insured, and 61 years old (median; interquartile range 51-72). Approximately 75% were (rather) satisfied with obtaining the SO via the online portal. The most preferred route of SO delivery was a personally delivered SO, which 80% would (rather) consider, followed by 70% (rather) considering SOs based on documents only and 48% (rather) considering SOs by phone. The most often mentioned advantage of telemedical SOs was independence of time and place, while the most important disadvantage was the standardized process resulting in a lack of direct and personal contact between the patient and the physician. Discussion: Although our results show that SOs (based on documents only) support patients and that patient satisfaction was high, personally delivered SOs were still preferred. Future research on the use of SOs based on documents only (in which patient population and in what situations) is needed.

Analysis of second opinion programs provided by German statutory and private health insurance - a survey of statutory and private health insurers

Background

Second medical opinions can give patients confidence when choosing among treatment options and help them understand their diagnosis. Health insurers in several countries, including Germany, offer formal second opinion programs (SecOPs). We systematically collected and analyzed information on German health insurers’ approach to SecOPs, how the SecOPs are structured, and to what extent they are evaluated.

Methods

In April 2019, we sent a questionnaire by post to all German statutory (n = 109) and private health insurers (n = 52). In September 2019, we contacted the nonresponders by email. The results were analyzed descriptively. They are presented overall and grouped by type of insurance (statutory/private health insurer).

Results

Thirty one of One hundred sixty one health insurers (response rate 19%) agreed to participate. The participating insurers covered approximately 40% of the statutory and 34% of the private health insured people. A total of 44 SecOPs were identified with a median of 1 SecOP (interquartile range (IQR) 1–2) offered by a health insurer. SecOPs were in place mainly for orthopedic (21/28 insurers with SecOPs; 75%) and oncologic indications (20/28; 71%). Indications were chosen principally based on their potential impact on a patient (22/28; 79%). The key qualification criterion for second opinion providers was their expertise (30/44 SecOPs; 68%).

Second opinions were usually provided based on submitted documents only (21/44; 48%) or on direct contact between a patient and a doctor (20/44; 45%). They were delivered after a median of 9 days (IQR 5–15). A median of 31 (IQR 7–85) insured persons per year used SecOPs. Only 12 of 44 SecOPs were confirmed to have conducted a formal evaluation process (27%) or, if not, plan such a process in the future (10/22; 45%).

Conclusion

Health insurers’ SecOPs focus on orthopedic and oncologic indications and are based on submitted documents or on direct patient-physician contact. The formal evaluation of SecOPs needs to be expanded and the results should be published. This can allow the evaluation of the impact of SecOPs on insured persons’ health status and satisfaction, as well as on the number of interventions performed. Our results should be interpreted with caution due to the low participation rate.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06207-8.

Histopathological Revision for Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms in Expert Centers: Does It Make the Difference?

BACKGROUND

The correct histopathological diagnosis of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) is crucial for treatment selection and prognostication. It is also very challenging due to limited experience in nonexpert centers. Revision of pathology is standard of care for most patients who are referred to NEN expert centers.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the clinical impact of histopathological revision for GEP-NEN patients referred to an expert center.

METHODS

Retrospective multicenter analysis of all GEP-NENs receiving a histopathological revision in 6 European NEN expert centers (January 2016 to December 2016) to evaluate the impact on patient management.

RESULTS

175 patients were included and 14.7% referred for a second opinion. Histological samples were 69.1% biopsies, 23.4% surgical specimens, and 7.5% endoscopic resections. Histopathological changes due to revision included first assessment of Ki67 in 8.6% of cases, change in grading in 11.4% (3.4% G1 to G2; 5.7% G2 to G1; 0.6% G2 to G3; 1.7% G3 to G2), definition of tumor invasion in 10.8%, additional immunohistochemical staining in 2.3%, diagnosis of mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma in 3.4%, exclusion of NEN in 3.4%, first diagnosis of NEN in 2.3%, and tumor differentiation for G3 in 1.7%. The revision had a clinical impact in 36.0% of patients, leading to a new therapeutic indication in 26.3%. The indication to then perform a new imaging test occurred in 21.1% and recommendation to follow-up with no further treatment in 6.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Histopathological revision in expert centers for NENs can change the diagnosis, with a significant clinical impact in about one third of patients.

Significance of Gleason grading of low-grade carcinoma of the prostate with therapeutic option of active surveillance

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance needs a precise grading diagnosis of a low-grade carcinoma of the prostate (Gleason score (GS) 6) within a small organ-confined tumor. However, how accurate is the gold standard of GS 6 in predicting a small pT2 carcinoma? To answer this question, we have analyzed grading systems in this study.

METHODS

Prostatic carcinomas in biopsy and corresponding radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens of 960 patients were graded by the Gleason system in which glandular fusions and nucleolar stage (prominence and location) were considered.

RESULTS

Using the modified Gleason grading, a high upgrading rate from the biopsy to RP specimens (GS 6-7) and in even 30% a non-organ-confined growth pattern (pT3) of GS 6 carcinoma in RP was found. When considering glandular fusion and the incorporation of the state of nucleoli within the Gleason grading, the agreement of score 6 between biopsy and RP specimens as well as the prediction of a pT2a tumor increased from about 80 to 90%.

CONCLUSION

The combination of Gleason grading and grading of the nuclear and nucleolar features may help to identify patients eligible for active surveillance.