| Title |
The Value of a Second Opinion for Breast Cancer Patients Referred to a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Cancer Center with a Multidisciplinary Breast Tumor Board
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Surgical Oncology, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1245/s10434-018-6599-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Denise Garcia, Laura S. Spruill, Abid Irshad, Jennifer Wood, Denise Kepecs, Nancy Klauber-DeMore |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to investigate the changes in diagnosis after a second opinion for breast cancer patients from a multi-disciplinary tumor board (MTB) review at an National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer center. A retrospective study analyzed patients with a breast cancer diagnosed at an outside institution who presented for a second opinion from August 2015 to March 2016 at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC). Radiology, pathology, and genetic testing reports from outside institutions were compared with reports generated after an MTB review and subsequent workup at MUSC. The second-opinion cases were categorized based on whether diagnostic variations were present or not. The review included 70 patients seeking second opinions, and 33 (47.1%) of these patients had additional radiologic images. A total of 30 additional biopsies were performed for 25 patients, with new cancers identified in 16 patients. Overall, 16 (22.8%) of the 70 of patients had additional cancers diagnosed. For 14 (20%) of the 70 patients, a second opinion led to a change in pathology interpretation. Genetic testing was performed for 11 patients (15.7%) who met the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for genetic testing, but none showed a mutation other than a variant of unknown significance. After a complete workup, 30 (42.8%) of the 70 patients had a change in diagnosis as a result of the MTB review. A review by an MTB at an NCI-designated cancer center changed the diagnosis for 43% of the patients who presented for a second opinion for breast cancer. The study findings support the conclusion that referral for a second opinion is beneficial and has a diagnostic impact for many patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 14 | 35% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 5% |
| Sweden | 2 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 3% |
| Congo | 1 | 3% |
| Guatemala | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 29 | 73% |
| Scientists | 6 | 15% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Librarian | 3 | 6% |
| Researcher | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 24 | 46% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 26 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 116. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 June 2022.
All research outputs
#354,937
of 25,210,618 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#33
of 7,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,820
of 334,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#4
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,210,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,214 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,327 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.