ArticleCancer medicine2023
Clinical value of second opinions in oncology: A retrospective review of changes in diagnosis and treatment recommendations.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- How prior spectacle prescriptions shape diagnostic behavior: evidence from a randomized field experiment on vision care in Western China.BMC health services research · 2025Trial
- A Tale of Two Pathways: Same-Surgeon Versus Different-Surgeon Resection After Second Surgical Opinion.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Patient-driven second opinions in oncology: a review.The oncologist · 2026Review
- Feasibility Study: Early Experiences With a Cancer Center's Virtual Expert Medical Opinion Program.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- Bridging the communication gap in foregut cancer: A qualitative exploration of patient and caregiver perspectives.Surgical oncology insight · 2026Article
- Two Heads Are Better Than One: Second Opinions and Collaborations in Oncology.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2026Article
- What Is the Cost Impact of Second Opinions in Oncology? A Retrospective Review.JCO oncology practice · 2025Article
- ENIGMA+: a national, decentralized, remote consent study for clinical data and biospecimen collection in patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC.The oncologist · 2025Observational
- Clinical value of second opinions in oncology: A retrospective review of changes in diagnosis and treatment recommendations.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundData on the clinical value of second opinions in oncology are limited. We examined diagnostic and treatment changes resulting from second opinions and the expected impact on morbidity and prognosis.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included patients presenting in 2018 to a high-volume cancer center for second opinions about newly diagnosed colorectal, head and neck, lung, and myeloma cancers or abnormal results. Two sub-specialty physicians from each cancer type reviewed 30 medical records (120 total) using a process and detailed data collection guide meant to mitigate institutional bias. The primary outcome measure was the rate of treatment changes that were "clinically meaningful", i.e., expected to impact morbidity and/or prognosis. Among those with treatment changes, another outcome measure was the rate of clinically meaningful diagnostic changes that led to treatment change.
resultsOf 120 cases, forty-two had clinically meaningful changes in treatment with positive expected outcomes (7 colorectal, 17 head and neck, 11 lung, 7 myeloma; 23-57%). Two patients had negative expected outcomes from having sought a second opinion, with worse short-term morbidity and unchanged long-term morbidity and prognosis. All those with positive expected outcomes had improved expected morbidity (short- and/or long-term); 11 (0-23%) also had improved expected prognosis. Nine involved a shift from treatment to observation; 21 involved eliminating or reducing the extent of surgery, compared to 6 adding surgery or increasing its extent. Of the 42 with treatment changes, 13 were due to clinically meaningful diagnostic changes (1 colorectal, 5 head and neck, 3 lung, 4 myeloma; 3%-17%) .
conclusionsSecond-opinion consultations sometimes add clinical value by improving expected prognoses; more often, they offer treatment de-escalations, with corresponding reductions in expected short- and/or long-term morbidity. Future research could identify subgroups of patients most likely to benefit from second opinions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.