Is there evidence for a better health care for cancer patients after a second opinion? A systematic review
- 611 Downloads
With growing complexity of diagnostics and therapy, as well as increasing involvement of patients in the decision-making process, there is more and more demand for second opinions in oncology. This literature review aims at analyzing the benefits and risks involved, as well as the tools needed to establish a structured program for second opinion within a modern healthcare system.
A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE and Embase and the databases SocINDEX, ERIC and CINAHL. Thirteen articles met the inclusion criteria and offered a relevant insight into the topic of second opinions.
Depending on the study, between 6.5 and 36 % of patients search for a second opinion, due to a variety of reasons. Changes in diagnosis, treatment recommendations or prognosis as a result of the second opinion occurred in 12–69 % of cases. In 43–82 % of cases, the original diagnosis or treatment was verified. Patient satisfaction was high, and the second opinion was deemed as helpful and reassuring in most cases. Yet, data on patient-relevant outcomes or on the quality of the second opinion are missing.
In general, outcome data on second opinion are divergent and scarce. Yet, with patients’ demand for second opinion and influence of second opinion on treatment decisions, a structured, high quality and transparent second-opinion program seems mandatory. Such a program may support patient–physician communication and improve the flow of information, as well as decision-making. Its evaluation should be independent from the provider of the second opinion.
KeywordsSecond opinion Patients’ needs Information Cancer Counseling
There was no funding for our review.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) (2013) What study designs should be included in an EPOC review? EPOC resources for review authors. http://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-specific-resources-review-authors. Accessed 27 Nov 2015
- Heimpel H, Hess CF, Hohenberger W, Nagel GA, Schaefer HE (1999) Second opinion in cancer medicine. Onkologie 22:246–250Google Scholar
- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), World Health Organization (WHO) (2015) GLOBOCAN 2012: Estimated Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide in 2012. http://globocan.iarc.fr/Default.aspx. Accessed 19 June 2015
- Malfait TLA, Surmont VF, Hiddinga BI, Vermaelen KY, Van Meerbeeck JP (2013) Second opinion for thoracic cancer and its impact on diagnosis and treatment strategy: a single institutional series. J Thorac Oncol 8:S1315Google Scholar
- Robert Koch Institut (RKI), Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland (2013) Krebs in Deutschland 2009/2010, 9th edn. RKI, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Schook RM, Avest MJ, Ter Setten CH, Van Smit EF, Postmus PE (2011) Second opinions in an expert center for lung cancer patients affect diagnosis and therapy. J Thorac Oncol 6:S472–S473Google Scholar