Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
Impact of oncology review meetings on second opinions for patients with gastrointestinal cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nourrit Marc, Camilleri Géraldine M, Couderc Anne-Claire, Verchain Audrey, Bouatay Kamilia, Valéry Marine, Smolenschi Cristina, Hollebecque Antoine, Pudlarz Thomas, Megherbi Alexandre, Diebakate Laura, Delaye Matthieu, Khettab Mohamed, Boige Valérie, Ducreux Michel, Boilève Alice
Аннотация
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.
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.