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":"肿瘤学审查会议对胃肠道肿瘤患者第二意见的影响。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Impact of oncology review meetings on second opinions for patients with gastrointestinal cancer.
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.
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.