Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28033448›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2017

Second Opinions From Medical Oncologists for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Prevalence, Correlates, and Consequences.

Allison W Kurian, Christopher R Friese, Irina Bondarenko, Reshma Jagsi, Yun Li, Ann S Hamilton, Kevin C Ward, Steven J Katz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Comorbidity, treatment toxicity and satisfaction with cancer care: an international cross-sectional study based on the EORTC PATSAT-C33 and OUT-PATSAT7.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Second opinions in medical oncology.BMC palliative care · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Allison W KurianDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California2Departments of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Christopher R FrieseDepartment of Systems, Populations, and Leadership and Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor.
Irina BondarenkoDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Reshma JagsiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Yun LiDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Ann S HamiltonDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Kevin C WardDepartment of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Steven J KatzDepartment of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor9Department of Internal Medicine, School of Public Health, Division of General Medicine, Univeristy of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Funding

CALIFORNIA COORDINATED CANCER PREVENTION & CONTROL PROGRAMU58DP003862 · DP · CALIFORNIA STATE DEPT OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI SNIPES, KURT P · 2012 to 2014
$31.5M
GEORGIA COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CONTROL PROGRAMU58DP003875 · DP · GEORGIA DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI O'CONNOR, JEAN CATHERINE · 2012 to 2014
$15.9M
The Challenge of Individualizing Treatments for Patients with Breast CancerP01CA163233 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI HOFER, TIMOTHY P. · 2012 to 2016
$13.4M
CCR NIH HHS HHSN261201300015CNCCDPHP CDC HHS U58 DP003862NCCDPHP CDC HHS U58 DP003875NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000034CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000035CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000035INCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000140CNCI NIH HHS P01 CA163233
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceAdvances in the evaluation and treatment of breast cancer have made the clinical decision-making context much more complex. A second opinion from a medical oncologist may facilitate decision making for women with breast cancer, yet little is known about second opinion use.

objectiveTo investigate the patterns and correlates of second opinion use and the effect on chemotherapy decisions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsA total of 1901 women newly diagnosed with stages 0 to II breast cancer between July 2013 and September 2014 (response rate, 71.0%) were accrued through 2 population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries (Georgia and Los Angeles County, California) and surveyed about their experiences with medical oncologists, decision making, and chemotherapy use. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Factors associated with second opinion use were evaluated using logistic regression. Also assessed was the association between second opinion and chemotherapy use, adjusting for chemotherapy indication and propensity for receiving a second opinion. Multiple imputation and weighting were used to account for missing data.

resultsA total of 1901 patients with stage I to II breast cancer (mean [SD] age, 61.6 [11.0] years; 1071 [56.3%] non-Hispanic white) saw any medical oncologist. Analysis of multiply imputed, weighted data (mean n = 1866) showed that 168 (9.8%) (SE, 0.74%) received a second opinion and 54 (3.2%) (SE, 0.47%) received chemotherapy from the second oncologist. Satisfaction with chemotherapy decisions was high and did not differ between those who did (mean [SD], 4.3 [0.08] on a 1- to 5-point scale) or did not (4.4 [0.03]) obtain a second opinion (P = .29). Predictors of second opinion use included college education vs less education (odds ratio [OR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.24-2.75), frequent use of internet-based support groups (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.12-4.11), an intermediate result on the 21-gene recurrence score assay (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.11-3.09), and a variant of uncertain significance on hereditary cancer genetic testing (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.09-9.59). After controlling for patient and tumor characteristics, second opinion use was not associated with chemotherapy receipt (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.71-1.52). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Second opinion use was low (<10%) among patients with early-stage breast cancer, and high decision satisfaction regardless of second opinion use suggests little unmet demand. Along with educational level and use of internet support groups, uncertain results on genomic testing predicted second opinion use. Patient demand for second opinions may increase as more complex genomic tests are disseminated.

Indexed as

Drug TherapyReferral and ConsultationAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsDecision MakingFemaleGenetic TestingHumansLogistic ModelsMedical OncologyMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPatient SatisfactionSEER ProgramYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28033448
PMCPMC5520652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.