ArticleJAMA oncology2017
Second Opinions From Medical Oncologists for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Prevalence, Correlates, and Consequences.
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.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Predictors of treatment refusal in patients with colorectal cancer: A systematic review.Seminars in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Patient-driven second opinions in oncology: a review.The oncologist · 2026Review
- The potential effects of traditional Chinese medicine on the outcomes after breast cancer surgery: a large population-based study.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- The Approach to Multidisciplinary Oncologic Breast Care.Seminars in plastic surgery · 2025Review
- Patient-reported observations on medical procedure timeliness (PROMPT) in breast cancer: a qualitative study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024Article
- Development of a Multilevel Model to Identify Patients at Risk for Delay in Starting Cancer Treatment.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Benefits versus drawbacks of delaying surgery due to additional consultations in older patients with breast cancer.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Germline Cancer Susceptibility Gene Testing in Unselected Patients with Hepatobiliary Cancers: A Multi-Center Prospective Study.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2022Article
- Comparison of Universal Genetic Testing vs Guideline-Directed Targeted Testing for Patients With Hereditary Cancer Syndrome.JAMA oncology · 2021Article
- Surgeon and medical oncologist peer network effects on the uptake of the 21-gene breast cancer recurrence score assay.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Oncologists' Communication About Uncertain Information in Second Opinion Consultations: A Focused Qualitative Analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Second opinions in medical oncology.BMC palliative care · 2020Article
- Impact of Second Opinions in Breast Cancer Diagnostics and Treatment: A Retrospective Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2019Article
- Assessment of Diagnostic Outcomes of RNA Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of the Diagnostic Yield and Patient Experience of Multiplex Gene Panel Testing For Hereditary Cancer Risk.JCO precision oncology · 2019Article
- Association of Attending Surgeon With Variation in the Receipt of Genetic Testing After Diagnosis of Breast Cancer.JAMA surgery · 2018Article
- Uptake, Results, and Outcomes of Germline Multiple-Gene Sequencing After Diagnosis of Breast Cancer.JAMA oncology · 2018Article
- Recent Trends in Chemotherapy Use and Oncologists' Treatment Recommendations for Early-Stage Breast Cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.