Analysis of Oncological Second Opinions in a Certified University Breast and Gynecological Cancer Center Regarding Consensus between the First and Second Opinion and Conformity with the Guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Oncological second opinions are becoming increasingly important in the era of complex treatments and established certified cancer centers. Oncological guidelines with the highest levels of evidence are available, but these can only be effective to the extent that they are implemented. Therefore, we analyzed the effects of second opinions with regard to their agreement with first opinions and conformity with guidelines. METHODS: In 164 patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer or gynecological malignancy who requested a second opinion, the first and second opinions, established at the interdisciplinary tumor conference, and conformity with the guidelines were evaluated. RESULTS: The first opinion was not in agreement with the guidelines in 34.8% (15.2% diagnosis, 12.8% surgical therapy, 13.4% systemic therapy, and 5.5% radiotherapy), and the recommendations were optimized in the second opinion in 56.7% (28.7% diagnosis, 15.9% surgical therapy, 30.5% systemic therapy, and 8.5% radiotherapy). CONCLUSIONS: Oncological second opinions showed significant effects and one-third of first opinions were not in conformity with the guidelines. In a significant proportion of cases, the existing treatment plan was changed or supplemented to allow modern and individualized treatment approaches.

Analysis of Oncological Second Opinions in a Certified University Breast and Gynecological Cancer Center in Relation to Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

INTRODUCTION: Oncological second opinions are becoming increasingly important given more complex treatment strategies, simultaneously more patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and many comprehensive cancer centers initiate integrative medicine programs. The present study focuses on analyzing the effects of a second opinion in relation to attitudes toward CAM. METHODS: In this prospective study patients (n = 97) with a diagnosis of breast cancer or gynecological malignancies who had requested a second opinion received a questionnaire before and after the second opinion concerning their attitudes toward CAM. RESULTS: The majority of patients had breast cancer (72.2%, n = 70). Only 6.2% (n = 6) stated that they had been informed about CAM by the doctors who treated them first, 21.6% (n = 21) had received information about it when seeking the second opinion. After the first opinion, 42.3% (n = 41) wanted to try CAM, the same proportion trusted orthodox medicine alone. After the second opinion, 24 patients (24.7%) wanted to try CAM, while 38.1% (n = 37) relied exclusively on orthodox medicine. There was a significant correlation between an increased patients' need for information and interest in CAM (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Today, aspects of CAM still are very often no part of oncological first and second opinions. This might hence lead to discouraging patients to try out CAM and therefore integrative medicine programs in comprehensive cancer centers might be problem-solving.

Analysis of motives and patient satisfaction in oncological second opinions provided by a certified university breast and gynecological cancer center.

PURPOSE: Second opinions in oncology are becoming increasingly important in an era of more complex treatments and a growing demand for information by patients. Therefore, we analyzed their effects and influencing factors like patients' motives, subjective extent of information and satisfaction with communications. METHODS: This prospective study evaluated second opinions for patients with breast cancer or gynecological malignancy. The patients received a questionnaire before and two months after, which inquired expectations, reasons, and satisfaction with the second opinion and the attending physicians. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients were included and the majority had breast cancer (75.0%). Receiving the second opinion made 89.7% feel better informed, their need for information decreased (from 75.3% to 39.2%, P < 0.0001), and satisfaction with doctor-patient communications increased (from 61.9 to 91.8%, P = 0.0002). There were various reasons for requesting a second opinion, e.g., the extremely stressful situation of a cancer diagnosis, hope for change in the treatment recommendation or dissatisfaction with the initial physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Second opinions can lead to significantly greater patient satisfaction, meeting the need for information and leading to better management of patients in the extremely stressful situation of a cancer diagnosis. Doctor-patient communications play a key role.

Design and Implementation of a Single Source Multipurpose Hospital-Wide Clinical Trial Registry.

IT-supported patient recruitment, serious adverse event reporting as well as making information about clinical trials accessible to the public on websites, are still major challenges in clinical trials. Too often the distribution of information about trials being performed within a hospital across numerous institutions and IT systems is a barrier to provide efficient IT support for such scenarios. Thus, the essential prerequisite to mastering those challenges is to achieve one single point of truth with adequate, complete, accurate and up-to-date information about all clinical trials running at a hospital. We describe the design and implementation of such a single source clinical trial registry serving multiple purposes at a university hospital.

[Resilience, Fear of Progression and Psychosocial Distress in Patients with Breast Cancer and Gynecological Tumors Seeking a Second Opinion]. / Resilienz, Progredienzangst und psychische Belastungen bei Patientinnen mit Brustkrebs und gynäkologischen Tumoren, die eine ärztliche Zweitmeinung einholen.

PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to find out about psychological distress, fear of progression, and resilience levels in patients with breast cancer and gynecological tumors asking for a second opinion concerning their oncological treatment. METHODS: 158 female cancer patients were assessed for those parameters in a questionnaire survey comprising SOC-13, FoP-Q-SF, and the NCCN distress thermometer. RESULTS: 16.2% of the breast cancer patients and 20.5% of the patients with gynecological tumors suffered from dysfunctional fear of progression, 70.4% of the breast cancer patients and 80.6% of the patients with gynecological tumors were highly distressed. The patients did not differ significantly in their resilience levels from a representative sample of the general population. DISCUSSION: Strong disease-related fear and distress were found in participating patients seeking a second medical opinion. CONCLUSIONS: Further study of the connection between psychological variables and the decision for a second oncological opinion seems crucial concerning implications for doctor-patient-communication.