Observational studyJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2025
Improving quality of care for cancer patients through oncological second opinions in a Comprehensive Cancer Center: adherence to second-opinion therapy recommendations.
Observational study in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeReceiving treatment in certified oncological centers and obtaining a second medical opinion has been proven to enhance both the quality and cost-effectiveness of care for oncological patients. Interdisciplinary care optimizes the treatment of oncological patients by validating the diagnosis and treatment recommendation, emphasizes translational research, and applies oncological therapies in a more target-oriented manner. This study aims to examine the extent of patient adherence to second medical opinions provided at the Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-Metropolitan Area Nuremberg (CCC Erlangen-EMN) and investigates how specific patient characteristics such as age, gender, and type of cancer diagnosis influence the likelihood of adhering to a second opinion.
methodsThis is a prospective, single-center observational study supported by the local statutory health-insurance body (Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse, AOK). A total of 584 male and female patients with cancer in the fields of urology, gynecology, gastroenterology, or sarcoma, seeking a second medical opinion were assessed for their adherence to the second opinion. Levels of adherence in patient subgroups were compared using appropriate statistical tests. Correction for multiple testing was not performed, due to the exploratory nature of the study.
resultsAlmost 75% of the patients adhered to the second opinion recommendations and an additional 10% partially followed them. Men adhered to the second opinion recommendation slightly more often (79.1%) than women (70.7%; chi-square test, P = 0.01). At 83%, second-opinion adherence was highest among patients who had received an incomplete but guideline-compliant first opinion. If the first opinion was not guideline-compliant, about 67% adhered to the second opinion. Adherence to second opinions was not significantly influenced by whether the initial therapy recommendation adhered to guidelines (Fisher's test, P = 0.16 for all departments, P = 0.27 for the gynecology department). Most patients adhered to the second opinion after primary therapy (92.9%).
conclusionsMore than two-thirds of patients ultimately followed the recommendation provided in the second opinion. The results of this study enhance our understanding of patient adherence to medical advice and treatment regimens. This study demonstrated that the majority of patients adhere to second opinions and highlighted the feasibility of easy access to second opinions from a certified cancer center. Women adhered slightly less to second opinions than men. More detailed and comprehensive therapy recommendations could potentially enhance adherence rates in the future.
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.