Impact of oncology review meetings on second opinions for patients with gastrointestinal cancer.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Marc Nourrit, Géraldine M Camilleri, Anne-Claire Couderc, Audrey Verchain, Kamilia Bouatay, Marine Valéry, Cristina Smolenschi, Antoine Hollebecque, Thomas Pudlarz, Alexandre Megherbi, Laura Diebakate, Matthieu Delaye, Mohamed Khettab, Valérie Boige, Michel Ducreux, Alice Boilève
{"title":"Impact of oncology review meetings on second opinions for patients with gastrointestinal cancer.","authors":"Marc Nourrit, Géraldine M Camilleri, Anne-Claire Couderc, Audrey Verchain, Kamilia Bouatay, Marine Valéry, Cristina Smolenschi, Antoine Hollebecque, Thomas Pudlarz, Alexandre Megherbi, Laura Diebakate, Matthieu Delaye, Mohamed Khettab, Valérie Boige, Michel Ducreux, Alice Boilève","doi":"10.1007/s00520-025-09922-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Second opinions are increasingly sought by patients, particularly in complex and life-altering conditions such as gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, to ensure confidence in their diagnosis and treatment plans or to seek therapeutic trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study analyzed second-opinion requests handled by the GI oncology team in our institution between January and March 2024, examining the types of questions raised, patient characteristics, and their impact on clinical decision-making.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 261 eligible patients, 259 were included in this analysis. Most patients had metastatic disease (86%), and 51% had received at least two lines of prior treatment. Requests were predominantly submitted by oncologists (63%), with a significant proportion (41%) coming from outside academic centers. General practitioners (GPs) accounted for 37% of the submissions, often with incomplete records (86% completeness vs. 99% for oncologists; p < 0.01). The median age at diagnosis was 60 years, with younger patients being more frequently referred by oncologists (57.0 vs. 62.5 years, p < 0.001). The most common diagnoses were pancreatic (29%) and colorectal (27%) cancers. Second-opinion requests focused on therapeutic management (73%) and access to clinical trials (60%). Therapeutic decisions were in line with the standard of care in 93% of the cases, while 15% received alternative recommendations, such as intrahepatic arterial infusion or targeted therapies. However, participation in therapeutic trials (1.2%) and molecular screening (2.7%) was seldom offered to patients, highlighting the need for better tools to access trials. Importantly, palliative care decisions were upheld in 95% of the specific requests.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrates the potential value of structured second-opinion pathways in ensuring adherence to evidence-based care and addressing patient concerns. However, improving GP support, reducing referral delays, and optimizing access to trials remain critical for improving outcomes in patients with advanced GI cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":22046,"journal":{"name":"Supportive Care in Cancer","volume":"33 10","pages":"867"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Supportive Care in Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-025-09922-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Second opinions are increasingly sought by patients, particularly in complex and life-altering conditions such as gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, to ensure confidence in their diagnosis and treatment plans or to seek therapeutic trials.

Methods: This retrospective study analyzed second-opinion requests handled by the GI oncology team in our institution between January and March 2024, examining the types of questions raised, patient characteristics, and their impact on clinical decision-making.

Results: Of 261 eligible patients, 259 were included in this analysis. Most patients had metastatic disease (86%), and 51% had received at least two lines of prior treatment. Requests were predominantly submitted by oncologists (63%), with a significant proportion (41%) coming from outside academic centers. General practitioners (GPs) accounted for 37% of the submissions, often with incomplete records (86% completeness vs. 99% for oncologists; p < 0.01). The median age at diagnosis was 60 years, with younger patients being more frequently referred by oncologists (57.0 vs. 62.5 years, p < 0.001). The most common diagnoses were pancreatic (29%) and colorectal (27%) cancers. Second-opinion requests focused on therapeutic management (73%) and access to clinical trials (60%). Therapeutic decisions were in line with the standard of care in 93% of the cases, while 15% received alternative recommendations, such as intrahepatic arterial infusion or targeted therapies. However, participation in therapeutic trials (1.2%) and molecular screening (2.7%) was seldom offered to patients, highlighting the need for better tools to access trials. Importantly, palliative care decisions were upheld in 95% of the specific requests.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates the potential value of structured second-opinion pathways in ensuring adherence to evidence-based care and addressing patient concerns. However, improving GP support, reducing referral delays, and optimizing access to trials remain critical for improving outcomes in patients with advanced GI cancer.

肿瘤学审查会议对胃肠道肿瘤患者第二意见的影响。
目的:越来越多的患者寻求第二意见,特别是在复杂和改变生活的情况下,如胃肠道(GI)癌症,以确保他们对诊断和治疗计划有信心或寻求治疗试验。方法:本回顾性研究分析我院胃肠道肿瘤团队在2024年1月至3月期间处理的第二意见请求,检查提出的问题类型、患者特征及其对临床决策的影响。结果:261例符合条件的患者中,259例纳入本分析。大多数患者有转移性疾病(86%),51%的患者接受过至少两种先前的治疗。请求主要由肿瘤学家提交(63%),很大比例(41%)来自学术中心以外。全科医生(gp)占提交的37%,通常记录不完整(完整性为86%,肿瘤学家为99%)。结论:本研究证明了结构化的第二意见路径在确保坚持循证护理和解决患者问题方面的潜在价值。然而,改善全科医生支持、减少转诊延误和优化临床试验的可及性对于改善晚期胃肠道癌患者的预后仍然至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Supportive Care in Cancer
Supportive Care in Cancer 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
9.70%
发文量
751
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Supportive Care in Cancer provides members of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and all other interested individuals, groups and institutions with the most recent scientific and social information on all aspects of supportive care in cancer patients. It covers primarily medical, technical and surgical topics concerning supportive therapy and care which may supplement or substitute basic cancer treatment at all stages of the disease. Nursing, rehabilitative, psychosocial and spiritual issues of support are also included.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信