Role of primary care in opioid prescribing for older head and neck cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Older head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors have concerning rates of potentially unsafe opioid prescribing. Identifying the specialties of opioid prescribers for HNC survivors is critical for targeting the settings for opioid safety interventions. This study hypothesized that oncology and surgery providers are primarily responsible for opioid prescriptions in the year after treatment but that primary care providers (PCPs) are increasingly involved in prescribing over time. METHODS: Using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, a retrospective analysis was conducted of adults aged >65 years diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 with stage I-III HNC and who had ≥6 months of treatment-free follow-up through 2019. Starting at treatment completion, opioid fills were assigned to a prescriber specialty: oncology, surgery, primary care, pain management, or other. Prescriber patterns were summarized for each year of follow-up. Multinomial logistic regression models captured the likelihood of opioids being prescribed by each specialty. RESULTS: Among 5135 HNC survivors, 2547 (50%) had ≥1 opioid fill (median, 2.1-year follow-up). PCPs prescribed 47% of all fills (42%-55% each year). PCPs prescribed opioids to 45% of survivors with ≥1 opioid fill, which was a greater share than other specialties. PCPs prescribed longer supplies of opioids (median, 20 days/fill; median, 30 days/year) than oncologists or surgeons. The likelihood of an opioid being prescribed by an oncology provider was four times lower than that of it being prescribed by a PCP. CONCLUSIONS: PCP involvement in opioid prescribing remains high throughout HNC survivorship. Interventions to improve the safety of opioid prescribing should target primary care, as is typical for opioid reduction efforts in the noncancer population.

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Pancreatic Cancer: A Comparative Analysis of Ontario and the USA.

BACKGROUND: Comparative studies evaluating quality of care in different healthcare systems can guide reform initiatives. This study seeks to characterize best practices by comparing utilization and outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) in the USA and Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Patients (age ≥ 66 years) with PC were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry and SEER-Medicare databases from 2006 to 2015. Demographics and treatment (surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, or multimodality (surgery and chemotherapy)) were described. In resected patients, neoadjuvant therapy, readmission, and 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality rates were calculated. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: This study includes 38,858 and 11,512 patients with PC from the USA and Ontario, respectively. More female patients were identified in the USA (54.0%) versus Ontario (46.9%). In the entire cohort, US patients received more radiation in addition to other therapies (18.8% vs. 13.5% Ontario) and chemotherapy alone (34.3% vs. 19.0% Ontario). While rates of resection were similar (13.4% USA vs.12.5% Ontario), multimodality therapy was more common in the UAS (9.0% vs. 6.4%). Among resected patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was uncommon in both groups, although more frequent in the USA (12.0% vs. 3.2% Ontario). The 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality rates were lower in Ontario vs. the USA (30-day: 3.26% vs. 4.91%; 90-day: 7.08% vs. 10.96%), however, overall survival was similar between the USA and Ontario. CONCLUSIONS: We observed substantive differences in treatment and outcomes between PC patients in the USA and Ontario, which may reflect known differences in healthcare systems. Close evaluation of healthcare policies can inform initiatives to improve care quality.

Safety of opioid prescribing among older cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors receive more long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) than people without cancer, but the safety of LTOT prescribing is unknown. METHODS: Opioid-naive adults aged ≥66 years who had been diagnosed in 2008-2015 with breast, lung, head and neck, or colorectal cancer were identified with data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries linked with Medicare claims. Survivors with 1 or more LTOT episodes (≥90 consecutive days) occurring ≥1 year after their cancer diagnosis and before censoring at hospice entry, another cancer diagnosis, 6 months before death, or December 2016 were included. The safety of prescribing during the first 90 days of the first LTOT episode was measured during follow-up. As a positive safety indicator, the proportion of survivors with concurrent nonopioid pain management was measured. Indicators of less safe prescribing were the proportion of survivors with a high average daily opioid dose (≥90 morphine milligram equivalents) and the proportion of survivors with concurrent benzodiazepine dispensing. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify clinical predictors of each safety outcome. RESULTS: In all, 3628 cancer survivors received LTOT during follow-up (median duration, 4.9 months; interquartile range, 3.5-8.0 months). Seventy-two percent of the survivors received multimodal pain management concurrently with LTOT. Eight percent of the survivors had high-dose opioid prescriptions; 25% of the survivors received benzodiazepines during LTOT. Multivariable analyses identified variations in safety measures by multiple clinical factors, although none were consistently significant across outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: To improve safe LTOT prescribing for survivors, efforts should focus on increasing multimodal pain management and reducing inappropriate benzodiazepine prescribing. Different clinical predictors of each outcome suggest different drivers of safe prescribing.

Risk for Clostridiodes difficile Infection among Older Adults with Cancer.

To assess whether risk for Clostridiodes difficile infection (CDI) is higher among older adults with cancer, we conducted a retrospective cohort study with a nested case-control analysis using population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data for 2011. Among 93,566 Medicare beneficiaries, incident CDI and odds for acquiring CDI were higher among patients with than without cancer. Specifically, risk was significantly higher for those who had liquid tumors and higher for those who had recently diagnosed solid tumors and distant metastasis. These findings were independent of prior healthcare-associated exposure. This population-based assessment can be used to identify targets for prevention of CDI.

Engaging Community-Based Cancer Physicians: Experience of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Cancer Alliance.

BACKGROUND: The proliferation of relationships between community health systems and academic medical centers has created a need to identify effective components of these models. This article reports on frontline physician experiences, with one such relationship established through the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) Cancer Alliance. MSK created the Alliance with the goals of rapidly bringing the newest standards of care into community settings and increasing patient access to clinical trials in their local communities. METHODS: Alliance leadership administered a 10-question anonymous survey to physicians treating patients with cancer across the 3 Alliance member health systems: Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute, Lehigh Valley Cancer Institute, and Miami Cancer Institute at Baptist Health South Florida. The purpose of the survey was to identify opportunities to improve physician engagement. RESULTS: There were 103 clinician respondents across Alliance members, of which 87 reported participation in a disease management team and were included in the final analysis. Most respondents reported high value from Alliance activities, such as attending MSK tumor boards (94%) and lecture series (96%), among those who reported them applicable. Across all respondents, most reported satisfaction with engagement opportunities, such as MSK physician participation in their institution's meetings (76%). When asked where they would like to see increased engagement, the most commonly reported response was for more lecture series (45%). Most respondents (88%) reported that the Alliance led to practice change, either for themselves or for other clinicians at their institution. Many attributed this practice change to MSK disease-specific process measures. CONCLUSIONS: The activities most valued by community physicians were heavily physician relationship-based. The encouraging experience of the MSK Cancer Alliance suggests that activities involving physician investment may be effective for promoting practice change in the context of cross-institution relationships. Future research is needed in this area.

Preventable and mitigable adverse events in cancer care: Measuring risk and harm across the continuum.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety is a critical concern in clinical oncology, but the ability to measure adverse events (AEs) across cancer care is limited by a narrow focus on treatment-related toxicities. The objective of this study was to assess the nature and extent of AEs among cancer patients across inpatient and outpatient settings. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 400 adult patients selected by stratified random sampling who had breast (n = 128), colorectal (n = 136), or lung cancer (n = 136) treated at a comprehensive cancer center in 2012. Candidate AEs, or injuries due to medical care, were identified by trained nurse reviewers over the course of 1 year from medical records and safety-reporting databases. Physicians determined the AE harm severity and the likelihood of preventability and harm mitigation. RESULTS: The 400-patient sample represented 133,358 days of follow-up. Three hundred four AEs were identified for an overall rate of 2.3 events per 1000 patient days (91.2 per 1000 inpatient days and 0.9 per 1000 outpatient days). Thirty-four percent of the patients had 1 or more AEs (95% confidence interval, 29%-39%), and 16% of the patients had 1 or more preventable or mitigable AEs (95% confidence interval, 13%-20%). The AE rate for patients with breast cancer was lower than the rate for patients with colorectal or lung cancer (P ≤ .001). The preventable or mitigable AE rate was 0.9 per 1000 patient days. Six percent of AEs and 4% of preventable AEs resulted in serious harm. Examples included lymphedema, abscess, and renal failure. CONCLUSIONS: A heavy burden of AEs, including preventable or mitigable events, has been identified. Future research should examine risk factors and improvement strategies for reducing their burden. Cancer 2017;123:4728-4736. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

A Population-Based Assessment of Emergency Department Observation Status for Older Adults With Cancer.

Background: Hospitals' use of observation status for patients with cancer presenting to the emergency department (ED) is not well understood. This model of care delivery may be a viable alternative to inpatient admission for patients with cancer presenting with certain conditions. Our objective was to assess the use of observation status among Medicare beneficiaries with and without cancer. Methods: Population-based SEER-Medicare data were used to assess differences in the use of observation status between Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥66 years with and without cancer using a matched analysis (n=151,183 per cohort). We assessed the ratio of observation unit use to inpatient admission, between cancer and noncancer cohorts, and for patients diagnosed with breast, colon, lung, and prostate cancers. Poisson regression models were used to calculate observation rate estimates and 95% CIs while adjusting for selected patient characteristics. Results: When considering the volume of hospitalizations, observation status is used less frequently among beneficiaries with cancer than those without (43 vs 69 observation status visits per 1,000 inpatient admissions, respectively). The estimated observation rate per 1,000 inpatient admissions was higher for beneficiaries aged <75 years versus those aged ≥75 years, those with a Charlson comorbidity index of 0 vs 1 or ≥2, and those without a prior hospitalization versus those with ≥1 prior hospitalizations. Patients with breast and prostate cancers had higher adjusted and unadjusted observation rates per 1,000 inpatient admissions compared with those with colon and lung cancers. Conclusions: Observation status is used proportionately less for beneficiaries with cancer than those without. There may be opportunities to develop standards for ED staff to manage certain conditions for patients with cancer in observation status, and to reserve hospital resources for those who need it most.

Provider Differences in Use of Implanted Ports in Older Adults With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Identifying unwarranted variation in health care can highlight opportunities to reduce harm. One often discretionary process in oncology is use of implanted ports to administer intravenous chemotherapy. While there are benefits, ports carry risks. This study's objective was to assess provider-driven variation in port use among cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective assessment using population-based SEER-Medicare data to assess differences in port use across health care providers of older adults with cancer. Participants included over 18,000 patients ages 66 and older diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung, or pancreatic cancer in 2005-2007, treated by approximately 2900 providers. We identified port use for patients receiving treatment from hospital outpatient facilities versus physicians' offices. Our main analysis assessed the likelihood of a patient receiving a port given port use by the provider's last patient. For a subset of high-use providers, we examined individual provider-level variation by estimating the risk-adjusted likelihood of insertion. RESULTS: Patients receiving chemotherapy in hospital outpatient facilities were significantly less likely to receive a port than those treated in physicians' offices, with adjusted odds ratios (AOR) varying from 0.50 to 0.75 across cancer sites. Implanting a port was associated with increased likelihood of port insertion in the provider's next patient (AOR varied from 1.71 to 2.25). Significant between-provider variation was found among providers with at least 10 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the idea that there is provider-driven variation in the use of ports for chemotherapy administration. This variation highlights an opportunity to standardize practice and reduce unnecessary use.

A Framework for Integrating Telehealth Equitably across the cancer care continuum.

The COVID-19 pandemic placed a spotlight on the potential to dramatically increase the use of telehealth across the cancer care continuum, but whether and how telehealth can be implemented in practice in ways that reduce, rather than exacerbate, inequities are largely unknown. To help fill this critical gap in research and practice, we developed the Framework for Integrating Telehealth Equitably (FITE), a process and evaluation model designed to help guide equitable integration of telehealth into practice. In this manuscript, we present FITE and showcase how investigators across the National Cancer Institute's Telehealth Research Centers of Excellence are applying the framework in different ways to advance digital and health equity. By highlighting multilevel determinants of digital equity that span further than access alone, FITE highlights the complex and differential ways structural determinants restrict or enable digital equity at the individual and community level. As such, achieving digital equity will require strategies designed to not only support individual behavior but also change the broader context to ensure all patients and communities have the choice, opportunity, and resources to use telehealth across the cancer care continuum.

Transforming patient-centered cancer care using telehealth: the MATCHES Center.

Modern cancer care is costly and logistically burdensome for patients and their families despite an expansion of technology and medical advances that create the opportunity for novel approaches to care. Therefore, there is a growing appreciation for the need to leverage these innovations to make cancer care more patient centered and convenient. The Memorial Sloan Kettering Making Telehealth Delivery of Cancer Care at Home Efficient and Safe Telehealth Research Center is a National Cancer Institute-designated and funded Telehealth Research Center of Excellence poised to generate the evidence necessary to inform the appropriate use of telehealth as a strategy to improve access to cancer services that are convenient for patients. The center will evaluate telehealth as a strategy to personalize cancer care delivery to ensure that it is not only safe and effective but also convenient and efficient. In this article, we outline this new center's research strategy, as well as highlight challenges that exist in further integrating telehealth into standard oncology practice based on early experiences.

Implementation Strategies to Promote Short-Course Radiation for Bone Metastases.

Importance: For patients with nonspine bone metastases, short-course radiotherapy (RT) can reduce patient burden without sacrificing clinical benefit. However, there is great variation in uptake of short-course RT across practice settings. Objective: To evaluate whether a set of 3 implementation strategies facilitates increased adoption of a consensus recommendation to treat nonspine bone metastases with short-course RT (ie, ≤5 fractions). Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized quality improvement study was conducted at 3 community-based cancer centers within an existing academic-community partnership. Rollout was initiated in 3-month increments between October 2021 and May 2022. Participants included treating physicians and patients receiving RT for nonspine bone metastases. Data analysis was performed from October 2022 to May 2023. Exposures: Three implementation strategies-(1) dissemination of published consensus guidelines, (2) personalized audit-and-feedback reports, and (3) an email-based electronic consultation platform (eConsult)-were rolled out to physicians. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was adherence to the consensus recommendation of short-course RT for nonspine bone metastases. Mixed-effects logistic regression at the bone metastasis level was used to model associations between the exposure of physicians to the set of strategies (preimplementation vs postimplementation) and short-course RT, while accounting for patient and physician characteristics and calendar time, with a random effect for physician. Physician surveys were administered before implementation and after implementation to assess feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of each strategy. Results: Forty-five physicians treated 714 patients (median [IQR] age at treatment start, 67 [59-75] years; 343 women [48%]) with 838 unique nonspine bone metastases during the study period. Implementing the set of strategies was not associated with use of short-course RT (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.45-1.34; P = .40), with unadjusted adherence rates of 53% (444 lesions) preimplementation vs 56% (469 lesions) postimplementation; however, the adjusted odds of adherence increased with calendar time (odds ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.20-2.36; P = .003). All 3 implementation strategies were perceived as being feasible, acceptable, and appropriate; only the perception of audit-and-feedback appropriateness changed before vs after implementation (19 of 29 physicians [66%] vs 27 of 30 physicians [90%]; P = .03, Fisher exact test), with 20 physicians (67%) preferring reports quarterly. Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, a multicomponent set of implementation strategies was not associated with increased use of short-course RT within an academic-community partnership. However, practice improved with time, perhaps owing to secular trends or physician awareness of the study. Audit-and-feedback was more appropriate than anticipated. Findings support the need to investigate optimal approaches for promoting evidence-based radiation practice across settings.

Electronic consent in clinical care: an international scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Digital technologies create opportunities for improvement of consenting processes in clinical care. Yet little is known about the prevalence, characteristics or outcomes of shifting from paper to electronic consenting, or e-consent, in clinical settings. Thus questions remain around e-consent's impact on efficiency, data integrity, user experience, care access, equity and quality. Our objective was to scope all known findings on this critical topic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Through an international, systematic scoping review, we identified and assessed all published findings on clinical e-consent in the scholarly and grey literatures, including consents for telehealth encounters, procedures and health information exchanges. From each relevant publication, we abstracted data on study design, measures, findings and other study features. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Metrics describing or evaluating clinical e-consent, including preferences for paper versus e-consenting; efficiency (eg, time, workload) and effectiveness (eg, data integrity, care quality). User characteristics were captured where available. RESULTS: A total of 25 articles published since 2005, most from North America or Europe, report on the deployment of e-consent in surgery, oncology and other clinical settings. Experimental designs and other study characteristics vary, but nearly all focus on procedural e-consents. Synthesis reveals relatively consistent findings around improved efficiency and data integrity with, and user preferences for, e-consent. Care access and quality issues are less frequently explored, with disparate findings. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The literature is nascent and largely focused on issues that are immediate and straightforward to measure. As virtual care pathways expand, more research is urgently needed to ensure that care quality and access are advanced, not compromised, by e-consent.

Electronic Consent at US Cancer Centers: A Survey of Practices, Challenges, and Opportunities.

PURPOSE: Digital technologies create opportunities for improving consenting processes in cancer care and research. Yet, little is known about the prevalence of electronic consenting, or e-consent, at US cancer care institutions. METHODS: We surveyed institutions in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network about their capabilities for clinical, research, and administrative e-consents; technologies used; telemedicine consents; multilingual support; evaluations; and opportunities and challenges in moving from paper-based to electronic processes. Responses were summarized across responding institutions. RESULTS: Twenty-five institutions completed the survey (81% response rate). Respondents were from all census regions and included freestanding and matrix cancer centers. Twenty (80%) had e-consent capabilities, with variability in the extent of adoption: One (5%) had implemented e-consent for all clinical, research, and administrative needs while 19 (95%) had a mix of paper and electronic consenting. Among those with e-consent capabilities, the majority (14 of 20, 70%) were using features embedded in their electronic health record. Most had a combination of paper and e-consenting for clinical purposes (18, 72%). About two-thirds relied entirely on paper for research consents (16, 64%) but had at least some electronic processes for administrative consents (15, 60%). Obstacles to e-consenting included challenges with procuring or maintaining hardware, content management, workflow integration, and digital literacy of patients. Successes included positive user experiences, workflow improvements, and better record-keeping. Only two of 20 (10%) respondents with e-consent capabilities had evaluated the impact of automating consent processes. CONCLUSION: E-consent was prevalent in our sample, with 80% of institutions reporting at least some capabilities. Further progress is needed for the benefits of e-consenting to be realized broadly.

Persistence of Telemedicine Usage for Breast and Prostate Cancer after the Peak of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

While COVID-19 catalyzed a shift to telemedicine, little is known about the persistence of remote cancer care in non-emergent times. We assessed telemedicine use at a high-volume academic cancer center in New York City and analyzed breast and prostate cancer visits pre-COVID-19, peak COVID-19, and post-peak. Descriptive statistics assessed visit mode (in person, telemedicine) and type (new, follow-up, other) by department/specialty, with Fisher's exact tests comparing peak/post-peak differences. The study included 602,233 visits, with telemedicine comprising 2% of visits pre-COVID-19, 50% peak COVID-19, and 30% post-peak. Notable variations emerged by department/specialty and visit type. Post-peak, most departments/specialties continued using telemedicine near or above peak levels, except medicine, neurology, and survivorship, where remote care fell. In psychiatry, social work, and nutrition, nearly all visits were conducted remotely during and after peak COVID-19, while surgery and nursing maintained low telemedicine usage. Post-peak, anesthesiology and neurology used telemedicine seldom for new visits but often for follow-ups, while nursing showed the opposite pattern. These trends suggest department- and visit-specific contexts where providers and patients choose telemedicine in non-emergent conditions. More research is needed to explore these findings and evaluate telemedicine's appropriateness and impact across the care continuum.

Real-world use of bone modifying agents in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bone modifying agents (BMAs) prevent skeletal related events among patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) involving bone and prevent osteoporotic fractures among patients at high risk. BMA utilization for patients with mCRPC has not been well quantified. METHODS: We used linked SEER registry and Medicare claims data. We included men diagnosed with stage IV prostate adenocarcinoma during 2007-2015, aged > = 66 at diagnosis, with sufficient continuous enrollment in Medicare Parts A, B, and D, who received androgen deprivation therapy. We limited to those who subsequently received a CRPC-defining treatment (CDT). We identified patients with evidence of bone metastasis using claims. Our primary outcome was receipt of a BMA (zoledronic acid or denosumab) within 180 days of initiating CDT. RESULTS: Among 1292 included patients, 1034 (80%) had bone metastasis. BMA use within 180 days of initiating CDT was higher among patients with bone metastases than those without (705/1034 [68%] vs 56/258 [22%]). Among patients without bone metastasis, those with high osteoporotic fracture risk were more likely than those without to receive a BMA (OR = 2.48, 95% CI: 1.17, 5.29); however, only 26% of patients with high fracture risk received a BMA. Among patients who received BMAs, most (62%) first initiated them >90 days before initiating CDT. CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of patients with mCRPC and bone metastases received BMAs within 180 days after initiating CDT. A greater proportion of patients without bone metastasis may warrant BMA therapy for osteoporotic fracture prevention. Some patients with bone metastasis may be able to delay BMA initiation until CRPC.

Digitalizing the Clinical Research Informed Consent Process: Assessing the Participant Experience in Comparison With Traditional Paper-Based Methods.

PURPOSE: Consent processes are critical for clinical care and research and may benefit from incorporating digital strategies. We compared an electronic informed consent (eIC) option to paper consent across four outcomes: (1) technology burden, (2) protocol comprehension, (3) participant agency (ability to self-advocate), and (4) completion of required document fields. METHODS: We assessed participant experience with eIC processes compared with traditional paper-based consenting using surveys and compared completeness of required fields, over 3 years (2019-2021). Participants who consented to a clinical trial at a large academic cancer center via paper or eIC were invited to either pre-COVID-19 pandemic survey 1 (technology burden) or intrapandemic survey 2 (comprehension and agency). Consent document completeness was assessed via electronic health records. RESULTS: On survey 1, 83% of participants (n = 777) indicated eIC was easy or very easy to use; discomfort with technology overall was not correlated with discomfort using eIC. For survey 2, eIC (n = 262) and paper consenters (n = 193) had similar comprehension scores. All participants responded favorably to at least five of six agency statements; however, eIC generated a higher proportion of positive free-text comments (P < .05), with themes such as thoroughness of the discussion and consenter professionalism. eIC use yielded no completeness errors across 235 consents versus 6.4% for paper (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that eIC when compared with paper (1) did not increase technology burden, (2) supported comparable comprehension, (3) upheld key elements of participant agency, and (4) increased completion of mandatory consent fields. The results support a broader call for organizations to offer eIC for clinical research discussions to enhance the overall participant experience and increase the completeness of the consent process.

Clinical value of second opinions in oncology: A retrospective review of changes in diagnosis and treatment recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Data on the clinical value of second opinions in oncology are limited. We examined diagnostic and treatment changes resulting from second opinions and the expected impact on morbidity and prognosis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients presenting in 2018 to a high-volume cancer center for second opinions about newly diagnosed colorectal, head and neck, lung, and myeloma cancers or abnormal results. Two sub-specialty physicians from each cancer type reviewed 30 medical records (120 total) using a process and detailed data collection guide meant to mitigate institutional bias. The primary outcome measure was the rate of treatment changes that were "clinically meaningful", i.e., expected to impact morbidity and/or prognosis. Among those with treatment changes, another outcome measure was the rate of clinically meaningful diagnostic changes that led to treatment change. RESULTS: Of 120 cases, forty-two had clinically meaningful changes in treatment with positive expected outcomes (7 colorectal, 17 head and neck, 11 lung, 7 myeloma; 23-57%). Two patients had negative expected outcomes from having sought a second opinion, with worse short-term morbidity and unchanged long-term morbidity and prognosis. All those with positive expected outcomes had improved expected morbidity (short- and/or long-term); 11 (0-23%) also had improved expected prognosis. Nine involved a shift from treatment to observation; 21 involved eliminating or reducing the extent of surgery, compared to 6 adding surgery or increasing its extent. Of the 42 with treatment changes, 13 were due to clinically meaningful diagnostic changes (1 colorectal, 5 head and neck, 3 lung, 4 myeloma; 3%-17%) . CONCLUSIONS: Second-opinion consultations sometimes add clinical value by improving expected prognoses; more often, they offer treatment de-escalations, with corresponding reductions in expected short- and/or long-term morbidity. Future research could identify subgroups of patients most likely to benefit from second opinions.