Obtaining a second opinion is a neglected source of health care inequalities

Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor use: A review of the current knowledge and future directions

Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) is a severe and often lethal inflammatory syndrome characterized by excessive immune activation leading to fever, cytopenias, and multiorgan involvement. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are central to many contemporary cancer regimens, but their use is associated with immune-related adverse events. Here, we report a case of ICI-induced HLH successfully treated with single agent dexamethasone and provide a scoping review of the literature for cases of ICI-induced HLH with a focus on treatment strategies and outcomes. Using the Medline database, we searched for cases of ICI-associated HLH, with a total of 51 cases reported between 2017 and 2023. Our results underscore the severe nature of this disease, with a 13.7 % mortality rate across 51 case reports. Treatment strategies for ICI-induced HLH were variable: steroids alone (56.9 %), steroids with etoposide (17.6 %), steroids with tociluzumab (11.8 %), among other combinations. Our literature review indicates that steroids alone may be sufficient treatment in some cases of ICI-HLH, with comparable mortality with steroids alone (n = 29) (13.8 %) to that of cases treated with both steroids and immunomodulators (n = 15, 13.3 %). Moreover, all patients treated with steroids and tocilizumab survived (n = 6), suggesting that tocilizumab may be a reasonable next line of therapy when steroid monotherapy proves inadequate. We propose an outline for investigation and treatment of this rare complication of ICI use. Finally, we discuss possible future approaches to develop evidence-based strategies for the diagnosis and management of ICI-induced HLH including the importance of integrating the role of patient community involvement.

Exploration of Patient Retention in Seeking a Second Opinion: A Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

It is common for cancer patients to seek a second opinion for a variety of reasons. Understanding what drives patients to choose to receive treatment with their second opinion provider may uncover opportunities to improve the second opinion process. Therefore, we sought to identify the patient, disease, and treatment characteristics that were associated with second opinion retention rates in patients seeking a second surgical opinion for breast, colon, and pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate patients who sought a second opinion within a large academic health-care system for breast, colon, and pancreatic cancer. Electronic medical records were reviewed for second opinions. Patient demographics and characteristics were collected and compared between the retained group and the nonretained groups.

RESULTS

A total of 237 patients obtained second opinions for breast, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer. Patients that were offered a different treatment plan at their second opinion were more likely to be retained for systemic therapy (P = 0.009) for pancreatic cancer and any treatment for colon cancer (P = 0.003). Seeing a radiation oncologist (P = 0.007) or a plastic surgeon (P = 0.02) during the multidisciplinary consultation increased retention rates for breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons can better identify patients that are more likely to be retained after a second opinion by the individual patient characteristics and treatment factors. Understanding the factors that lead to retention for these three cancer types may help physicians provide the best possible resources for most patients presenting for second opinion evaluations.

Improving the Quality of Care for Cancer Patients through Oncological Second Opinions in a Comprehensive Cancer Center: Feasibility of Patient-Initiated Second Opinions through a Health-Insurance Service Point

BACKGROUND

To improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of care, cancer patients can obtain a second medical opinion on their treatment. Validation of the diagnostic procedure (e.g., imaging), diagnosis, and treatment recommendation allows oncological therapy to be applied in a more targeted way, optimizing interdisciplinary care. This study describes patients who received second opinions at the Comprehensive Cancer Center for Erlangen-Nuremberg metropolitan area in Germany over a 6-year period, as well as the amount of time spent on second-opinion counseling.

METHODS

This prospective, descriptive, single-center observational study included 584 male and female cancer patients undergoing gynecological, urologic, or general surgery who sought a second medical opinion. The extent to which the first opinion complied with standard guidelines was assessed solely descriptively.

RESULTS

The first opinion was in accordance with the guidelines and complete in 54.5% of the patients, and guideline compliant but incomplete in 13.2%. The median time taken to form a second opinion was 225 min, and the cancer information service was contacted by patients an average of eight times.

CONCLUSIONS

The initial opinion was guideline compliant and complete in every second case. Without a second opinion, the remaining patients would have been denied a guideline-compliant treatment recommendation. Obtaining a second opinion gives patients an opportunity to receive a guideline-compliant treatment recommendation and enables them to benefit from newer, individualized therapeutic approaches in clinical trials. Establishing patient-initiated second opinions via central contact points appears to be a feasible option for improving guideline compliance.

How to prepare for a bright future of radiology in Europe

Because artificial intelligence (AI)-powered algorithms allow automated image analysis in a growing number of diagnostic scenarios, some healthcare stakeholders have raised doubts about the future of the entire radiologic profession. Their view disregards not only the role of radiologists in the diagnostic service chain beyond reporting, but also the many multidisciplinary and patient-related consulting tasks for which radiologists are solicited. The time commitment for these non-reporting tasks is considerable but difficult to quantify and often impossible to fulfil considering the current mismatch between workload and workforce in many countries. Nonetheless, multidisciplinary, and patient-centred consulting activities could move up on radiologists' agendas as soon as AI-based tools can save time in daily routine. Although there are many reasons why AI will assist and not replace radiologists as imaging experts in the future, it is important to position the next generation of European radiologists in view of this expected trend. To ensure radiologists' personal professional recognition and fulfilment in multidisciplinary environments, the focus of training should go beyond diagnostic reporting, concentrating on clinical backgrounds, specific communication skills with referrers and patients, and integration of imaging findings with those of other disciplines. Close collaboration between the European Society of Radiology (ESR) and European national radiologic societies can help to achieve these goals. Although each adequate treatment begins with a correct diagnosis, many health politicians see radiologic procedures mainly as a cost factor. Radiologic research should, therefore, increasingly investigate the imaging impact on treatment and outcome rather than focusing mainly on technical improvements and diagnostic accuracy alone.Critical relevance statement Strategies are presented to prepare for a successful future of the radiologic profession in Europe, if AI-powered tools can alleviate the current reporting overload: engaging in multidisciplinary activities (clinical and integrative diagnostics), enhancing the value and recognition of radiologists' role through clinical expertise, focusing radiological research on the impact on diagnosis and outcome, and promoting patient-centred radiology by enhancing communication skills.Key points • AI-powered tools will not replace radiologists but hold promise to reduce the current reporting burden, enabling them to reinvest liberated time in multidisciplinary clinical and patient-related tasks.• The skills and resources for these tasks should be considered when recruiting and teaching the next generation of radiologists, when organising departments and planning staffing.• Communication skills will play an increasing role in both multidisciplinary activities and patient-centred radiology.• The value and importance of a correct and integrative diagnosis and the cost of an incorrect imaging diagnosis should be emphasised when discussing with non-medical stakeholders in healthcare.• The radiologic community in Europe should start now to prepare for a bright future of the profession for the benefit of patients and medical colleagues alike.

Impact of second opinion pathology review in the diagnosis and management of atypical melanocytic lesions: A prospective study of the Italian Melanoma Intergroup (IMI) and EORTC Melanoma Group

BACKGROUND

The clinical value of an expert pathological review in patients with an atypical melanocytic lesion diagnosis remains unclear. Herein, we evaluate its impact in a prospective clinical study.

METHODS

Patients with newly diagnosed or suspected atypical melanocytic proliferations and challenging skin tumours were reviewed prospectively by a specialised dermatopathologist through the nationwide 'Second Opinion Platform' of the Italian Melanoma Intergroup (IMI) network. The primary aim was the rate of major discrepancies that impacted patient management. Major discrepancies in diagnosis between referral and specialised review were blindly re-analysed by a panel of European Organisation for Research and Treatment (EORTC) Melanoma pathologists.

RESULTS

The samples submitted to central review included 254 lesions from 230 patients. The most frequent referral diagnoses were atypical melanocytic nevi of different subtypes (74/254, 29.2%), invasive melanomas (61/254, 24.0%), atypical melanocytic proliferations (37/254, 14.6%), AST (21/254, 8.3%) and in situ melanomas (17/254, 6.7%). There was disagreement between referral diagnosis and expert review in 90/254 cases (35.4%). Most importantly, 60/90 (66.7%) were major discordances with a change to the patient's clinical management. Among the 90 discordant cases, the most frequent new diagnosis occurred in World Health Organisation (WHO) Pathway I, followed by WHO Pathway IV (64/90 and 12/90, respectively). In total, 51/60 cases with major discrepancies were blindly re-evaluated by EORTC Melanoma pathologists with a final interobserver agreement in 90% of cases.

CONCLUSION

The study highlights that a second opinion for atypical melanocytic lesions affects clinical management in a minor, but still significant, proportion of cases. A central expert review supports pathologists and clinicians to limit the risk of both over- and under-treatment.

Patients' Choice, Consent, and Ethics in Patient Blood Management

The goal of patient blood management (PBM) is to optimize clinical outcomes for individual patients by managing their blood as a precious and unique resource to be safeguarded and managed judiciously. A corollary to successful PBM is the minimization or avoidance of blood transfusion and stewardship of donated blood. The first is achieved by a multidisciplinary approach with personalized management plans shared and decided on with the patient or their substitute. It follows that the physician-patient relationship is an integral component of medical practice and the fundamental link between patient and doctor based on trust and honest communication. Central to PBM is accurate and timely diagnosis based on sound physiology and pathophysiology as the bedrock on which scientifically based medicine is founded. PBM in all disease contexts starts with the questions, "What is the status of the patient's blood?" "If there are specific abnormalities in the blood, how should they be managed?" and "If allogeneic blood transfusion is considered, is there no reasonable alternative therapy?" There are compelling scientific reasons to implement a nontransfusion default position when there is clinical uncertainty and questionable evidence of clinical efficacy for allogeneic blood transfusion due to known potential hazards. Patients must be informed of their diagnosis, the nature, severity and prognosis of the disease, and treatment options along with risks and benefits. They should be involved in decision-making regarding their management. However, as part of this process, there are multifaceted medical, legal, ethical, and economic issues, encompassing shared decision-making, patient choice, and informed consent. Furthermore, variability in patient circumstances and preferences, the complexity of medical science, and the workings of health care systems in which consent takes place can be bewildering, not only for the patient but also for clinicians obtaining consent. Adding "patient" to the concept of blood management differentiates it from "donor" blood management to avoid confusion and the perception that PBM is a specific medical intervention. Personalized PBM is tailoring the PBM to the specific characteristics of each patient. With this approach, there should be no difficulty addressing the informed consent and ethical aspects of PBM. Patients can usually be reassured that there is nothing out of order with their blood, in which case the focus of PBM is to keep it that way. In some circumstances, a hematologist may be involved as a patient's blood advocate when abnormalities require expert involvement while the primary disease is being managed.

Analysis of the three-year work of a digital pathomorphological laboratory built from the ground

Digital pathology is a new stage in the development of pathomorphological diagnostics. This topic was most widespread during the COVID-19 pandemic. The advantages of digitization of diagnostics include the possibility of remote work of a pathologist, remote asynchronous consultation, and automation of business processes. They provide an increase in diagnostic quality and speed up the diagnosis process. These benefits are only a small part of what digital cancer diagnostics can provide. This article is written on our own experience of Russia's first fully digital pathomorphological laboratory UNIM. All advantages and disadvantages of digitization, peculiarities of using technology, differences from the conventional approach to diagnostics, the economics of the process, the importance of integration with LIS (laboratory information system) and MIS (medical information system), errors and principles of their solution, payback will be discussed, and every stage of laboratory work will be considered in detail: from logistics and registration to diagnosis and archiving. Due to the fact that all data has been digitized over several years, we will present a comprehensive analysis of statistics and observations on how to organize processes in a fully digital laboratory. A key feature of our experience is the high cost-effectiveness of the platform and approach, which allowed us to win the competition in the market. The result of the survey of doctors' attitudes towards digital pathology will also be presented.

Patient and clinician experiences of uncertainty in the diagnostic process: Current understanding and future directions

OBJECTIVE

Uncertainty occurs throughout the diagnostic process and must be managed to facilitate accurate and timely diagnoses and treatments. Better characterization of uncertainty can inform strategies to manage it more effectively in clinical practice. We provide a comprehensive overview of current literature on diagnosis-related uncertainty describing (1) where patients and clinicians experience uncertainty within the diagnostic process, (2) how uncertainty affects the diagnostic process, (3) roots of uncertainty related to probability/risk, ambiguity, or complexity, and (4) strategies to manage uncertainty.

DISCUSSION

Each diagnostic process step involves uncertainty, including patient engagement with the healthcare system; information gathering, interpretation, and integration; formulating working diagnoses; and communicating diagnoses to patients. General management strategies include acknowledging uncertainty, obtaining more contextual information from patients (e.g., gathering occupations and family histories), creating diagnostic safety nets (e.g., informing patients what red flags to look for), engaging in worst case/best case scenario planning, and communicating diagnostic uncertainty to patients, families, and colleagues. Potential strategies tailored to various aspects of diagnostic uncertainty are also outlined.

CONCLUSION

Scientific knowledge on diagnostic uncertainty, while previously elusive, is now becoming more clearly defined. Next steps include research to evaluate relationships between management and communication of diagnostic uncertainty and improved patient outcomes.

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.

The market landscape of online second opinion services for spine surgery

Background:

The aim of this study was to identify patient interest in second opinion services online and identify the options patients have in obtaining second opinions from spine surgeons in the United States.

Methods:

We utilized Google Trends (i.e., search data since 2010) to ascertain the level of interest in receiving second opinions for spinal surgery. In addition, we contacted the top 30 hospitals for neurology and neurosurgery in the U.S. News rankings by phone to obtain information regarding when/how and at what cost they provide second opinions for spine surgery.

Results:

The cost of the second surgical opinions averaged $493 (±$343) USD (range $90–$1,300); the time to receive a second opinion averaged 20 (±19) days (range 1 day–5 months). Remote or “online second opinion” programs charged an average of $643 (±$259) USD (range $100–$850), and the time to receive an “online second opinion” averaged 14 (±7) days (range 1–4 weeks).

Conclusion:

Although second opinions have been shown to be beneficial to patients, ambiguous or high costs and long wait times may serve as barriers for certain groups (i.e., uninsured or underinsured) and potentially diminish the quality of care.