ArticleJCO oncology practice2026
Feasibility Study: Early Experiences With a Cancer Center's Virtual Expert Medical Opinion Program.
Article in JCO oncology practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic concordance of remote WSI-based thyroid cytology compared to conventional cytological diagnosis: a pilot study.Diagnostic pathology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSecond opinion consultations are a promising strategy to identify errors in diagnosis and recommend optimal treatment. Yet, there are geographic barriers. By bringing high-level care to patients where they live, virtual second opinion programs might benefit populations without access to specialty cancer centers. We conducted a feasibility study that examined changes in treatment recommended through a national virtual second opinion program based at a comprehensive cancer center.
methodsMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK)'s virtual second opinion program was developed via a national cancer employer benefits solution. Each review was conducted by an MSK subspecialist and supported by a digital platform. After conducting the second opinion, subspecialists answered a questionnaire regarding their perceptions of the expected impact of recommended treatment changes. Here, we report findings from December 2023 to November 2024.
resultsThere were 231 cases completed. There were 55% women, with a median age of 56 years. Patients resided across the United States, with 56% from the South. The most common cancer categories were breast, GI and mixed tumor (GMT), and prostate. Cases were reviewed by 76 unique subspecialists. Subspecialists perceived that they made a meaningful change in recommended treatment (expected to affect patient outcomes) in 75 cases (32%). Expected changes included better prognosis/survival (n = 49, 65%), improved short-term morbidity/quality of life/toxicity (n = 36, 48%), or improved long-term morbidity/quality of life/toxicity (n = 49, 65%). There was a higher percent of recommended changes for liquid compared with solid tumor cases (liquid: 15 of 31, 48%; solid: 60 of 200, 30%).
conclusionFindings are helpful for understanding the potential impact of a virtual second opinion program for patients with cancer and for developing strategies to reach underserved communities with geographic access barriers to high-quality cancer care from subspecialists.
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.