ArticleBreast care (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Analysis of Oncological Second Opinions in a Certified University Breast and Gynecological Cancer Center Regarding Consensus between the First and Second Opinion and Conformity with the Guidelines.
Article in Breast care (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-driven second opinions in oncology: a review.The oncologist · 2026Review
- 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.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Imaging of lumpectomy surface with large field-of-view confocal laser scanning microscope for intraoperative margin assessment - POLARHIS study.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOncological second opinions are becoming increasingly important in the era of complex treatments and established certified cancer centers. Oncological guidelines with the highest levels of evidence are available, but these can only be effective to the extent that they are implemented. Therefore, we analyzed the effects of second opinions with regard to their agreement with first opinions and conformity with guidelines.
methodsIn 164 patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer or gynecological malignancy who requested a second opinion, the first and second opinions, established at the interdisciplinary tumor conference, and conformity with the guidelines were evaluated.
resultsThe first opinion was not in agreement with the guidelines in 34.8% (15.2% diagnosis, 12.8% surgical therapy, 13.4% systemic therapy, and 5.5% radiotherapy), and the recommendations were optimized in the second opinion in 56.7% (28.7% diagnosis, 15.9% surgical therapy, 30.5% systemic therapy, and 8.5% radiotherapy).
conclusionsOncological second opinions showed significant effects and one-third of first opinions were not in conformity with the guidelines. In a significant proportion of cases, the existing treatment plan was changed or supplemented to allow modern and individualized treatment approaches.
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.