ArticleAJR. American journal of roentgenology2017
Second-Opinion Review of Breast Imaging at a Cancer Center: Is It Worthwhile?
Article in AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Value of a Second Opinion for Breast Cancer Patients Referred to a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Cancer Center with a Multidisciplinary Breast Tumor Board.Annals of surgical oncology · 2018Trial
- Second-opinion interpretation of outside facility general ultrasound studies: rate of discrepancies and management change.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Review
- Clinical value of second opinions in oncology: A retrospective review of changes in diagnosis and treatment recommendations.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Value of Second-Opinion Interpretation of Outside-Facility Breast Imaging Studies to a Radiology Department and Cancer Center.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2022Article
- Repeat Breast Ultrasound Demonstrates Utility with Added Cancer Detection in Patients following Breast Imaging Second Opinion Recommendations.The breast journal · 2022Article
- Can Pre-biopsy Second-Look Breast Ultrasound Affect Clinical Management? Experience From a Single Tertiary Hospital.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Radiology reporting in oncology-oncologists' perspective.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2021Article
- Nonpalpable breast lesions: impact of a second-opinion review at a breast unit on BI-RADS classification.European radiology · 2021Article
- Application of a second opinion ultrasound in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 4A cases: can immediate biopsy be avoided?The Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- Article
- Multidisciplinary management of metastatic spine disease: initial symptom-directed management.Neuro-oncology practice · 2020Article
- Effect of an Artificial Intelligence Clinical Decision Support System on Treatment Decisions for Complex Breast Cancer.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2020Observational
- National Trends in Oncologic Diagnostic Imaging.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2020Article
- Impact of Second Opinions in Breast Cancer Diagnostics and Treatment: A Retrospective Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2019Article
- Making AI Even Smarter Using Ensembles: A Challenge to Future Challenges and Implications for Clinical Care.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2019Article
- Improving Cancer Diagnosis and Care: Patient Access to Oncologic Imaging Expertise.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2019Article
- Rapid pathology of lumpectomy margins with open-top light-sheet (OTLS) microscopy.Biomedical optics express · 2019Article
- Global Challenges for Cancer Imaging.Journal of global oncology · 2018Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveSecond-opinion review of breast imaging studies can be a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether reinterpretation of studies obtained at institutions outside a cancer center influences clinical management, specifically by revealing additional cancer and preventing unnecessary biopsy. MATERIALS AND
methodsA review was conducted of breast imaging studies of 200 patients who underwent ultrasound and MRI at community facilities and had the images submitted for second opinions at a cancer center between January and April 2014. Each case was evaluated for concordance between the original report and the second-opinion interpretation. Second-opinion review resulting in the recommendation and performance of new biopsies was further subdivided into benign, high-risk, and malignant categories based on the histopathologic results obtained at the cancer center.
resultsSecond-opinion review of the 200 cases showed a change in interpretation in 55 cases (28%; 95% CI, 21-34%). Overall, 26 recommendations (13%; 95% CI, 9-18%) led to a major change in management. Twenty new biopsies were performed, yielding 10 malignancies (5%; 95% CI, 2-9%) and four high-risk lesions (2%; 95% CI, 1-5%). Surgical management was changed to mastectomy for 6 of 10 patients (60%) with new sites of biopsy-proven malignancy. Eight biopsies were averted (4%; 95% CI, 2-8%) on the basis of benign interpretation of the imaging findings, and no disease was found at 1-year follow-up evaluation.
conclusionReinterpretation of studies obtained outside a cancer center resulted in a change in interpretation in more than one-fourth of submitted studies. Additional cancer was detected in 5% of patients, and biopsy was averted for 4%. The practice of second-opinion review influences clinical management and adds value to patient care.
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.