Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36397917›Full record

ArticleCureus2022

Second Opinions in Breast Cancer Surgery: What Have We Learned?

Meghan Beer, Hannah Allison, Carla Fisher, Betty Fan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Meghan BeerBreast Surgery, Community Health, Indianapolis, USA.
Hannah AllisonCenter for Outcomes Research in Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, USA.
Carla FisherSurgical Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, USA.
Betty FanSurgical Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Second-opinion consultations (SOCs) provide many benefits. However, duplicate office visits and the logistics of transferring medical records may be concerning for delaying treatment. There is currently no clear understanding regarding the characteristics of patients with breast cancer who desire second surgical opinions or if this contributes to delays in care. Methods A review of our institutional database from July 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, identified breast cancer patients who were documented to be SOCs or primary consultations (PC). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy patients were excluded. Comparisons of patient characteristics, tumor characteristics, and surgery factors were performed using chi-square analysis. All analyses were two-tailed and statistical significance was assigned at p <0.05. This study was deemed IRB-exempt. Results In our review, 158 breast cancer patients were identified, 21 (13.3%) SOCs and 137 (86.7%) PCs. Of the SOCs, 90% (19/21) underwent surgery at our institution. The study revealed an increased incidence of SOCs in those patients who ultimately underwent mastectomy (p=0.039) as well as those with lower pathologic T stage (p=0.021). There were no other differences in demographics, surgery, or tumor characteristics. No delay was seen in time for treatment. Conclusions Patients who sought second opinions were more likely to undergo mastectomy and had lower pathologic tumor size. The time from biopsy to surgery appointment was longer in patients who sought second opinions but there were no differences in the time from biopsy or surgery appointment. It is encouraging that those who sought second opinions did not face any delay in care once established.

Indexed as

breast cancer outcomesgeneral surgery and breast cancersecond opinionstime-to-treatmenttreatment time

Identifiers

PMID36397917
PMCPMC9648675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.