Clinical Impact of Second Opinion Radiology Consultation for Patients With Breast Cancer
Copyright © 2018 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved..
PURPOSE: To assess the incidence and clinical significance of discrepancy in subspecialty interpretation of outside breast imaging examinations for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients presenting to a tertiary cancer center.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study included patients presenting from July 2016 to March 2017 to a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center for second opinion after breast cancer diagnosis. Outside and second opinion radiology reports of 252 randomly selected patients were compared by two subspecialty breast radiologists to consensus. A peer review score was assigned, modeled after ACR's RADPEERTM peer review metric: 1-agree; 2-minor discrepancy (unlikely clinically significant); 3-moderate discrepancy (may be clinically significant); 4-major discrepancy (likely clinically significant). Among cases with clinically significant discrepancies, rates of clinical management change (management alterations including change in follow-up, neoadjuvant therapy use, and surgical management as a direct result of image review), and detection of additional malignancy were assessed through electronic medical record review.
RESULTS: A significant difference in interpretation (scores = 3 or 4) was seen in 41 of 252 cases (16%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 11.7%-20.8%). The difference led to additional workup in 38 of 252 cases (15%, 95% CI 10.6%-19.5%) and change in clinical management in 18 of 252 cases (7.1%, 95% CI 4.0%-10.2%), including 15 of 252 with change in surgical management (6.0%, 95% CI, 3.0%-8.9%). An additional malignancy or larger area of disease was identified in 11 of 252 cases (4.4%, 95% CI, 1.8%-6.9%).
CONCLUSION: Discrepancy between outside and second-opinion breast imaging subspecialists frequently results in additional workup for breast cancer patients, changes in treatment plan, and identification of new malignancies.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2019 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2019 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:16 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR - 16(2019), 6 vom: 15. Juni, Seite 814-823 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Whorms, Debra S [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Breast cancer |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 19.06.2020 Date Revised 19.06.2020 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.jacr.2018.10.010 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM292091052 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM292091052 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225072323.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.10.010 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n0973.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM292091052 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)30579707 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S1546-1440(18)31326-7 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Whorms, Debra S |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Clinical Impact of Second Opinion Radiology Consultation for Patients With Breast Cancer |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2019 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 19.06.2020 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 19.06.2020 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2018 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a PURPOSE: To assess the incidence and clinical significance of discrepancy in subspecialty interpretation of outside breast imaging examinations for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients presenting to a tertiary cancer center | ||
| 520 | |a MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study included patients presenting from July 2016 to March 2017 to a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center for second opinion after breast cancer diagnosis. Outside and second opinion radiology reports of 252 randomly selected patients were compared by two subspecialty breast radiologists to consensus. A peer review score was assigned, modeled after ACR's RADPEERTM peer review metric: 1-agree; 2-minor discrepancy (unlikely clinically significant); 3-moderate discrepancy (may be clinically significant); 4-major discrepancy (likely clinically significant). Among cases with clinically significant discrepancies, rates of clinical management change (management alterations including change in follow-up, neoadjuvant therapy use, and surgical management as a direct result of image review), and detection of additional malignancy were assessed through electronic medical record review | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: A significant difference in interpretation (scores = 3 or 4) was seen in 41 of 252 cases (16%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 11.7%-20.8%). The difference led to additional workup in 38 of 252 cases (15%, 95% CI 10.6%-19.5%) and change in clinical management in 18 of 252 cases (7.1%, 95% CI 4.0%-10.2%), including 15 of 252 with change in surgical management (6.0%, 95% CI, 3.0%-8.9%). An additional malignancy or larger area of disease was identified in 11 of 252 cases (4.4%, 95% CI, 1.8%-6.9%) | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: Discrepancy between outside and second-opinion breast imaging subspecialists frequently results in additional workup for breast cancer patients, changes in treatment plan, and identification of new malignancies | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Observational Study | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Breast cancer | |
| 650 | 4 | |a breast imaging | |
| 650 | 4 | |a interpretation discrepancy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a radiology consultation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a second opinion | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Giess, Catherine S |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Golshan, Mehra |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Freedman, Rachel A |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bunnell, Craig A |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Alper, Emily C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Losk, Katya |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Khorasani, Ramin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR |d 2004 |g 16(2019), 6 vom: 15. Juni, Seite 814-823 |w (DE-627)NLM167902083 |x 1558-349X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:16 |g year:2019 |g number:6 |g day:15 |g month:06 |g pages:814-823 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2018.10.010 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 16 |j 2019 |e 6 |b 15 |c 06 |h 814-823 | ||