Second medical opinion in oncological setting
•The second opinion is increasingly requested by both doctors and cancer patients.•It involves severe diagnosis, choice of treatment or communication difficulties.•Few studies have addressed this issue with no general consensus.•Our decalogue can be a useful tool to deal with the second opinion requ...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Critical reviews in oncology/hematology 2021-04, Vol.160, p.103282-103282, Article 103282 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 103282 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 103282 |
| container_title | Critical reviews in oncology/hematology |
| container_volume | 160 |
| creator | Maruzzo, Marco La Verde, Nicla Russo, Antonio Marchetti, Paolo Scagnoli, Simone Gonzato, Ornella Di Maio, Massimo Zagonel, Vittorina Galvano, Antonio Lanzetta, Gaetano Perrone, Francesco Beretta, Giordano Bordonaro, Roberto Comandone, Alessandro Cinieri, Saverio Nicolis, Fabrizio Gori, Stefania |
| description | •The second opinion is increasingly requested by both doctors and cancer patients.•It involves severe diagnosis, choice of treatment or communication difficulties.•Few studies have addressed this issue with no general consensus.•Our decalogue can be a useful tool to deal with the second opinion request.
Oncological patients increasingly require second medical opinions to feel more likely confident with their oncologists and treatments, although this could lead to wrong opinions and delay in the start of treatments. Second opinions can be required also by physicians to obtain advices, especially in case of rare tumors. The request of new opinions is documented in radiology and pathology settings too, with not negligible discrepancy rate. Conversely, the role in general medical/surgical conditions has not been well established. Literature is poor of studies relative to second opinions or they are more focused on patient's motivations. For these reasons, AIOM (Italian Association of Medical Oncology) and AIOM Foundation faced this topic during the 7th Annual Meeting on Ethics in Oncology (Ragusa, 4–5 t h May 2018). In this position paper we report reasons, limits, advantages and outcomes of second medical opinion and the respective Decalogue in the oncological setting. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103282 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2498518633</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1040842821000706</els_id><sourcerecordid>2498518633</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-9c9032ae90e05b6859c4a34f2156b7ae00275b42bd9222d9d93d030591d6542d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkE1PGzEQhq0KVGjoX6j2WAltGH_u-kijfiAhcQDO1q49iRxt7GA7VPx7DEnhWE4ejZ53PPMQ0lCYU6DqYj23yZeEjzHYOQNGa5uznn0ip7TvdAtC0aNag4C2F6w_IV9yXgOAEKr7TE44V53UIE9Je4s2Btds0Hk7TE3c-uBjaHxo6uw4xdVrO2MpPqzOyPFymDJ-Pbwzcv_r593iT3t98_tqcXndWsFEabXVdZ0BNSDIUfVSWzFwsWRUqrEbEIB1chRsdJox5rTT3AEHqalTUjDHZ-T7fu42xYcd5mI2PlucpiFg3GXDhO4l7RXnFe33qE0x54RLs01-M6QnQ8G8yDJr8y7LvMgye1k1-u3wy26s978F_9l5n_0Xx7jM1mOw-IZVnUpUinW1ArrwZShV3SLuQqnR849HK_1jT2OV-ugxmUPC-YS2GBf9_895Bv0Qnss</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2498518633</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Second medical opinion in oncological setting</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Maruzzo, Marco ; La Verde, Nicla ; Russo, Antonio ; Marchetti, Paolo ; Scagnoli, Simone ; Gonzato, Ornella ; Di Maio, Massimo ; Zagonel, Vittorina ; Galvano, Antonio ; Lanzetta, Gaetano ; Perrone, Francesco ; Beretta, Giordano ; Bordonaro, Roberto ; Comandone, Alessandro ; Cinieri, Saverio ; Nicolis, Fabrizio ; Gori, Stefania</creator><creatorcontrib>Maruzzo, Marco ; La Verde, Nicla ; Russo, Antonio ; Marchetti, Paolo ; Scagnoli, Simone ; Gonzato, Ornella ; Di Maio, Massimo ; Zagonel, Vittorina ; Galvano, Antonio ; Lanzetta, Gaetano ; Perrone, Francesco ; Beretta, Giordano ; Bordonaro, Roberto ; Comandone, Alessandro ; Cinieri, Saverio ; Nicolis, Fabrizio ; Gori, Stefania</creatorcontrib><description>•The second opinion is increasingly requested by both doctors and cancer patients.•It involves severe diagnosis, choice of treatment or communication difficulties.•Few studies have addressed this issue with no general consensus.•Our decalogue can be a useful tool to deal with the second opinion request.
Oncological patients increasingly require second medical opinions to feel more likely confident with their oncologists and treatments, although this could lead to wrong opinions and delay in the start of treatments. Second opinions can be required also by physicians to obtain advices, especially in case of rare tumors. The request of new opinions is documented in radiology and pathology settings too, with not negligible discrepancy rate. Conversely, the role in general medical/surgical conditions has not been well established. Literature is poor of studies relative to second opinions or they are more focused on patient's motivations. For these reasons, AIOM (Italian Association of Medical Oncology) and AIOM Foundation faced this topic during the 7th Annual Meeting on Ethics in Oncology (Ragusa, 4–5 t h May 2018). In this position paper we report reasons, limits, advantages and outcomes of second medical opinion and the respective Decalogue in the oncological setting.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1040-8428</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0461</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103282</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33675905</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>NEW YORK: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>AIOM ; Decalogue ; Ethics ; Hematology ; Humans ; Italy ; Life Sciences & Biomedicine ; Medical Oncology ; Meeting ; Oncology ; Physicians ; Referral and Consultation ; Science & Technology ; Second medical opinions</subject><ispartof>Critical reviews in oncology/hematology, 2021-04, Vol.160, p.103282-103282, Article 103282</ispartof><rights>2021 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>true</woscitedreferencessubscribed><woscitedreferencescount>2</woscitedreferencescount><woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid>wos000640532700001</woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-9c9032ae90e05b6859c4a34f2156b7ae00275b42bd9222d9d93d030591d6542d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-9c9032ae90e05b6859c4a34f2156b7ae00275b42bd9222d9d93d030591d6542d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9064-8761 ; 0000-0003-4943-5622 ; 0000-0003-4365-5683 ; 0000-0002-9738-0526 ; 0000-0001-8906-3785 ; 0000-0002-6541-1228 ; 0000-0002-4370-2008 ; 0000-0002-8427-7765</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103282$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33675905$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Maruzzo, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>La Verde, Nicla</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russo, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marchetti, Paolo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scagnoli, Simone</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gonzato, Ornella</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Di Maio, Massimo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zagonel, Vittorina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galvano, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lanzetta, Gaetano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perrone, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beretta, Giordano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bordonaro, Roberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Comandone, Alessandro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cinieri, Saverio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nicolis, Fabrizio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gori, Stefania</creatorcontrib><title>Second medical opinion in oncological setting</title><title>Critical reviews in oncology/hematology</title><addtitle>CRIT REV ONCOL HEMAT</addtitle><addtitle>Crit Rev Oncol Hematol</addtitle><description>•The second opinion is increasingly requested by both doctors and cancer patients.•It involves severe diagnosis, choice of treatment or communication difficulties.•Few studies have addressed this issue with no general consensus.•Our decalogue can be a useful tool to deal with the second opinion request.
Oncological patients increasingly require second medical opinions to feel more likely confident with their oncologists and treatments, although this could lead to wrong opinions and delay in the start of treatments. Second opinions can be required also by physicians to obtain advices, especially in case of rare tumors. The request of new opinions is documented in radiology and pathology settings too, with not negligible discrepancy rate. Conversely, the role in general medical/surgical conditions has not been well established. Literature is poor of studies relative to second opinions or they are more focused on patient's motivations. For these reasons, AIOM (Italian Association of Medical Oncology) and AIOM Foundation faced this topic during the 7th Annual Meeting on Ethics in Oncology (Ragusa, 4–5 t h May 2018). In this position paper we report reasons, limits, advantages and outcomes of second medical opinion and the respective Decalogue in the oncological setting.</description><subject>AIOM</subject><subject>Decalogue</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Hematology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Italy</subject><subject>Life Sciences & Biomedicine</subject><subject>Medical Oncology</subject><subject>Meeting</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Referral and Consultation</subject><subject>Science & Technology</subject><subject>Second medical opinions</subject><issn>1040-8428</issn><issn>1879-0461</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>GIZIO</sourceid><sourceid>HGBXW</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkE1PGzEQhq0KVGjoX6j2WAltGH_u-kijfiAhcQDO1q49iRxt7GA7VPx7DEnhWE4ejZ53PPMQ0lCYU6DqYj23yZeEjzHYOQNGa5uznn0ip7TvdAtC0aNag4C2F6w_IV9yXgOAEKr7TE44V53UIE9Je4s2Btds0Hk7TE3c-uBjaHxo6uw4xdVrO2MpPqzOyPFymDJ-Pbwzcv_r593iT3t98_tqcXndWsFEabXVdZ0BNSDIUfVSWzFwsWRUqrEbEIB1chRsdJox5rTT3AEHqalTUjDHZ-T7fu42xYcd5mI2PlucpiFg3GXDhO4l7RXnFe33qE0x54RLs01-M6QnQ8G8yDJr8y7LvMgye1k1-u3wy26s978F_9l5n_0Xx7jM1mOw-IZVnUpUinW1ArrwZShV3SLuQqnR849HK_1jT2OV-ugxmUPC-YS2GBf9_895Bv0Qnss</recordid><startdate>202104</startdate><enddate>202104</enddate><creator>Maruzzo, Marco</creator><creator>La Verde, Nicla</creator><creator>Russo, Antonio</creator><creator>Marchetti, Paolo</creator><creator>Scagnoli, Simone</creator><creator>Gonzato, Ornella</creator><creator>Di Maio, Massimo</creator><creator>Zagonel, Vittorina</creator><creator>Galvano, Antonio</creator><creator>Lanzetta, Gaetano</creator><creator>Perrone, Francesco</creator><creator>Beretta, Giordano</creator><creator>Bordonaro, Roberto</creator><creator>Comandone, Alessandro</creator><creator>Cinieri, Saverio</creator><creator>Nicolis, Fabrizio</creator><creator>Gori, Stefania</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>17B</scope><scope>BLEPL</scope><scope>DTL</scope><scope>DVR</scope><scope>EGQ</scope><scope>GIZIO</scope><scope>HGBXW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9064-8761</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4943-5622</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4365-5683</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9738-0526</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8906-3785</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6541-1228</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4370-2008</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8427-7765</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202104</creationdate><title>Second medical opinion in oncological setting</title><author>Maruzzo, Marco ; La Verde, Nicla ; Russo, Antonio ; Marchetti, Paolo ; Scagnoli, Simone ; Gonzato, Ornella ; Di Maio, Massimo ; Zagonel, Vittorina ; Galvano, Antonio ; Lanzetta, Gaetano ; Perrone, Francesco ; Beretta, Giordano ; Bordonaro, Roberto ; Comandone, Alessandro ; Cinieri, Saverio ; Nicolis, Fabrizio ; Gori, Stefania</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-9c9032ae90e05b6859c4a34f2156b7ae00275b42bd9222d9d93d030591d6542d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>AIOM</topic><topic>Decalogue</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Hematology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Italy</topic><topic>Life Sciences & Biomedicine</topic><topic>Medical Oncology</topic><topic>Meeting</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Referral and Consultation</topic><topic>Science & Technology</topic><topic>Second medical opinions</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Maruzzo, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>La Verde, Nicla</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russo, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marchetti, Paolo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scagnoli, Simone</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gonzato, Ornella</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Di Maio, Massimo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zagonel, Vittorina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galvano, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lanzetta, Gaetano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perrone, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beretta, Giordano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bordonaro, Roberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Comandone, Alessandro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cinieri, Saverio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nicolis, Fabrizio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gori, Stefania</creatorcontrib><collection>Web of Knowledge</collection><collection>Web of Science Core Collection</collection><collection>Science Citation Index Expanded</collection><collection>Social Sciences Citation Index</collection><collection>Web of Science Primary (SCIE, SSCI & AHCI)</collection><collection>Web of Science - Social Sciences Citation Index – 2021</collection><collection>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2021</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Critical reviews in oncology/hematology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Maruzzo, Marco</au><au>La Verde, Nicla</au><au>Russo, Antonio</au><au>Marchetti, Paolo</au><au>Scagnoli, Simone</au><au>Gonzato, Ornella</au><au>Di Maio, Massimo</au><au>Zagonel, Vittorina</au><au>Galvano, Antonio</au><au>Lanzetta, Gaetano</au><au>Perrone, Francesco</au><au>Beretta, Giordano</au><au>Bordonaro, Roberto</au><au>Comandone, Alessandro</au><au>Cinieri, Saverio</au><au>Nicolis, Fabrizio</au><au>Gori, Stefania</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Second medical opinion in oncological setting</atitle><jtitle>Critical reviews in oncology/hematology</jtitle><stitle>CRIT REV ONCOL HEMAT</stitle><addtitle>Crit Rev Oncol Hematol</addtitle><date>2021-04</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>160</volume><spage>103282</spage><epage>103282</epage><pages>103282-103282</pages><artnum>103282</artnum><issn>1040-8428</issn><eissn>1879-0461</eissn><abstract>•The second opinion is increasingly requested by both doctors and cancer patients.•It involves severe diagnosis, choice of treatment or communication difficulties.•Few studies have addressed this issue with no general consensus.•Our decalogue can be a useful tool to deal with the second opinion request.
Oncological patients increasingly require second medical opinions to feel more likely confident with their oncologists and treatments, although this could lead to wrong opinions and delay in the start of treatments. Second opinions can be required also by physicians to obtain advices, especially in case of rare tumors. The request of new opinions is documented in radiology and pathology settings too, with not negligible discrepancy rate. Conversely, the role in general medical/surgical conditions has not been well established. Literature is poor of studies relative to second opinions or they are more focused on patient's motivations. For these reasons, AIOM (Italian Association of Medical Oncology) and AIOM Foundation faced this topic during the 7th Annual Meeting on Ethics in Oncology (Ragusa, 4–5 t h May 2018). In this position paper we report reasons, limits, advantages and outcomes of second medical opinion and the respective Decalogue in the oncological setting.</abstract><cop>NEW YORK</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>33675905</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103282</doi><tpages>6</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9064-8761</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4943-5622</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4365-5683</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9738-0526</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8906-3785</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6541-1228</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4370-2008</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8427-7765</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1040-8428 |
| ispartof | Critical reviews in oncology/hematology, 2021-04, Vol.160, p.103282-103282, Article 103282 |
| issn | 1040-8428 1879-0461 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2498518633 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
| subjects | AIOM Decalogue Ethics Hematology Humans Italy Life Sciences & Biomedicine Medical Oncology Meeting Oncology Physicians Referral and Consultation Science & Technology Second medical opinions |
| title | Second medical opinion in oncological setting |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T08%3A12%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Second%20medical%20opinion%20in%20oncological%20setting&rft.jtitle=Critical%20reviews%20in%20oncology/hematology&rft.au=Maruzzo,%20Marco&rft.date=2021-04&rft.volume=160&rft.spage=103282&rft.epage=103282&rft.pages=103282-103282&rft.artnum=103282&rft.issn=1040-8428&rft.eissn=1879-0461&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103282&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2498518633%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2498518633&rft_id=info:pmid/33675905&rft_els_id=S1040842821000706&rfr_iscdi=true |