Second-Opinion Review of Breast Imaging at a Cancer Center: Is It Worthwhile?

Second-opinion review of breast imaging studies can be a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether reinterpretation of studies obtained at institutions outside a cancer center influences clinical management, specifically by revealing addit...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of roentgenology (1976) 2017-06, Vol.208 (6), p.1386-1391
Hauptverfasser: Coffey, Kristen, D'Alessio, Donna, Keating, Delia M, Morris, Elizabeth A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1391
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1386
container_title American journal of roentgenology (1976)
container_volume 208
creator Coffey, Kristen
D'Alessio, Donna
Keating, Delia M
Morris, Elizabeth A
description Second-opinion review of breast imaging studies can be a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether reinterpretation of studies obtained at institutions outside a cancer center influences clinical management, specifically by revealing additional cancer and preventing unnecessary biopsy. A review was conducted of breast imaging studies of 200 patients who underwent ultrasound and MRI at community facilities and had the images submitted for second opinions at a cancer center between January and April 2014. Each case was evaluated for concordance between the original report and the second-opinion interpretation. Second-opinion review resulting in the recommendation and performance of new biopsies was further subdivided into benign, high-risk, and malignant categories based on the histopathologic results obtained at the cancer center. Second-opinion review of the 200 cases showed a change in interpretation in 55 cases (28%; 95% CI, 21-34%). Overall, 26 recommendations (13%; 95% CI, 9-18%) led to a major change in management. Twenty new biopsies were performed, yielding 10 malignancies (5%; 95% CI, 2-9%) and four high-risk lesions (2%; 95% CI, 1-5%). Surgical management was changed to mastectomy for 6 of 10 patients (60%) with new sites of biopsy-proven malignancy. Eight biopsies were averted (4%; 95% CI, 2-8%) on the basis of benign interpretation of the imaging findings, and no disease was found at 1-year follow-up evaluation. Reinterpretation of studies obtained outside a cancer center resulted in a change in interpretation in more than one-fourth of submitted studies. Additional cancer was detected in 5% of patients, and biopsy was averted for 4%. The practice of second-opinion review influences clinical management and adds value to patient care.
doi_str_mv 10.2214/AJR.16.16871
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5588856</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1878824983</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c427t-16ce79808a8fe68255414cdcfb7ab48f9460aa218622a7d94a920fdad30aec1a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkc1P3DAQxa0KVLa0N86VjxwI2I5jTziAYNWWraiQaKtys2adya6rbLzYWRD_fdPyISqNNIf56c3Te4ztSXGolNRHZ1-vD6UZB6x8wyay0qYopZZbbCJKIwsQ5c0Oe5fzbyGEhdq-ZTsKSiGVsBP27Tv52DfF1Tr0Ifb8mu4C3fPY8vNEmAc-W-Ei9AuOA0c-xd5T4lPqB0rHfJb5bOC_YhqW98vQ0el7tt1il-nD095lPz9_-jG9KC6vvsymZ5eF18oOhTSebA0CEFoyoKpKS-0b384tzjW0tTYCUUkwSqFtao21Em2DTSmQvMRyl5086q438xU1fvSTsHPrFFaYHlzE4P6_9GHpFvHOVRUAVGYU2H8SSPF2Q3lwq5A9dR32FDfZSbAAStdQjujBI-pTzDlR-_JGCve3ATc24KRx_xoY8Y-vrb3Az5GXfwBFRIEd</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1878824983</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Second-Opinion Review of Breast Imaging at a Cancer Center: Is It Worthwhile?</title><source>American Roentgen Ray Society</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Coffey, Kristen ; D'Alessio, Donna ; Keating, Delia M ; Morris, Elizabeth A</creator><creatorcontrib>Coffey, Kristen ; D'Alessio, Donna ; Keating, Delia M ; Morris, Elizabeth A</creatorcontrib><description>Second-opinion review of breast imaging studies can be a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether reinterpretation of studies obtained at institutions outside a cancer center influences clinical management, specifically by revealing additional cancer and preventing unnecessary biopsy. A review was conducted of breast imaging studies of 200 patients who underwent ultrasound and MRI at community facilities and had the images submitted for second opinions at a cancer center between January and April 2014. Each case was evaluated for concordance between the original report and the second-opinion interpretation. Second-opinion review resulting in the recommendation and performance of new biopsies was further subdivided into benign, high-risk, and malignant categories based on the histopathologic results obtained at the cancer center. Second-opinion review of the 200 cases showed a change in interpretation in 55 cases (28%; 95% CI, 21-34%). Overall, 26 recommendations (13%; 95% CI, 9-18%) led to a major change in management. Twenty new biopsies were performed, yielding 10 malignancies (5%; 95% CI, 2-9%) and four high-risk lesions (2%; 95% CI, 1-5%). Surgical management was changed to mastectomy for 6 of 10 patients (60%) with new sites of biopsy-proven malignancy. Eight biopsies were averted (4%; 95% CI, 2-8%) on the basis of benign interpretation of the imaging findings, and no disease was found at 1-year follow-up evaluation. Reinterpretation of studies obtained outside a cancer center resulted in a change in interpretation in more than one-fourth of submitted studies. Additional cancer was detected in 5% of patients, and biopsy was averted for 4%. The practice of second-opinion review influences clinical management and adds value to patient care.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0361-803X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1546-3141</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2214/AJR.16.16871</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28301207</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology ; Breast Neoplasms - pathology ; Cancer Care Facilities - utilization ; Female ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - utilization ; Middle Aged ; New York - epidemiology ; Observer Variation ; Prevalence ; Referral and Consultation - utilization ; Reproducibility of Results ; Risk Factors ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Ultrasonography, Mammary - utilization ; Utilization Review</subject><ispartof>American journal of roentgenology (1976), 2017-06, Vol.208 (6), p.1386-1391</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c427t-16ce79808a8fe68255414cdcfb7ab48f9460aa218622a7d94a920fdad30aec1a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c427t-16ce79808a8fe68255414cdcfb7ab48f9460aa218622a7d94a920fdad30aec1a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,4120,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28301207$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Coffey, Kristen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D'Alessio, Donna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keating, Delia M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morris, Elizabeth A</creatorcontrib><title>Second-Opinion Review of Breast Imaging at a Cancer Center: Is It Worthwhile?</title><title>American journal of roentgenology (1976)</title><addtitle>AJR Am J Roentgenol</addtitle><description>Second-opinion review of breast imaging studies can be a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether reinterpretation of studies obtained at institutions outside a cancer center influences clinical management, specifically by revealing additional cancer and preventing unnecessary biopsy. A review was conducted of breast imaging studies of 200 patients who underwent ultrasound and MRI at community facilities and had the images submitted for second opinions at a cancer center between January and April 2014. Each case was evaluated for concordance between the original report and the second-opinion interpretation. Second-opinion review resulting in the recommendation and performance of new biopsies was further subdivided into benign, high-risk, and malignant categories based on the histopathologic results obtained at the cancer center. Second-opinion review of the 200 cases showed a change in interpretation in 55 cases (28%; 95% CI, 21-34%). Overall, 26 recommendations (13%; 95% CI, 9-18%) led to a major change in management. Twenty new biopsies were performed, yielding 10 malignancies (5%; 95% CI, 2-9%) and four high-risk lesions (2%; 95% CI, 1-5%). Surgical management was changed to mastectomy for 6 of 10 patients (60%) with new sites of biopsy-proven malignancy. Eight biopsies were averted (4%; 95% CI, 2-8%) on the basis of benign interpretation of the imaging findings, and no disease was found at 1-year follow-up evaluation. Reinterpretation of studies obtained outside a cancer center resulted in a change in interpretation in more than one-fourth of submitted studies. Additional cancer was detected in 5% of patients, and biopsy was averted for 4%. The practice of second-opinion review influences clinical management and adds value to patient care.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Cancer Care Facilities - utilization</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - utilization</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>New York - epidemiology</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Referral and Consultation - utilization</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Mammary - utilization</subject><subject>Utilization Review</subject><issn>0361-803X</issn><issn>1546-3141</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkc1P3DAQxa0KVLa0N86VjxwI2I5jTziAYNWWraiQaKtys2adya6rbLzYWRD_fdPyISqNNIf56c3Te4ztSXGolNRHZ1-vD6UZB6x8wyay0qYopZZbbCJKIwsQ5c0Oe5fzbyGEhdq-ZTsKSiGVsBP27Tv52DfF1Tr0Ifb8mu4C3fPY8vNEmAc-W-Ei9AuOA0c-xd5T4lPqB0rHfJb5bOC_YhqW98vQ0el7tt1il-nD095lPz9_-jG9KC6vvsymZ5eF18oOhTSebA0CEFoyoKpKS-0b384tzjW0tTYCUUkwSqFtao21Em2DTSmQvMRyl5086q438xU1fvSTsHPrFFaYHlzE4P6_9GHpFvHOVRUAVGYU2H8SSPF2Q3lwq5A9dR32FDfZSbAAStdQjujBI-pTzDlR-_JGCve3ATc24KRx_xoY8Y-vrb3Az5GXfwBFRIEd</recordid><startdate>20170601</startdate><enddate>20170601</enddate><creator>Coffey, Kristen</creator><creator>D'Alessio, Donna</creator><creator>Keating, Delia M</creator><creator>Morris, Elizabeth A</creator><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><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170601</creationdate><title>Second-Opinion Review of Breast Imaging at a Cancer Center: Is It Worthwhile?</title><author>Coffey, Kristen ; D'Alessio, Donna ; Keating, Delia M ; Morris, Elizabeth A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c427t-16ce79808a8fe68255414cdcfb7ab48f9460aa218622a7d94a920fdad30aec1a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Cancer Care Facilities - utilization</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - utilization</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>New York - epidemiology</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Referral and Consultation - utilization</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Mammary - utilization</topic><topic>Utilization Review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Coffey, Kristen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D'Alessio, Donna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keating, Delia M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morris, Elizabeth A</creatorcontrib><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><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>American journal of roentgenology (1976)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Coffey, Kristen</au><au>D'Alessio, Donna</au><au>Keating, Delia M</au><au>Morris, Elizabeth A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Second-Opinion Review of Breast Imaging at a Cancer Center: Is It Worthwhile?</atitle><jtitle>American journal of roentgenology (1976)</jtitle><addtitle>AJR Am J Roentgenol</addtitle><date>2017-06-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>208</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1386</spage><epage>1391</epage><pages>1386-1391</pages><issn>0361-803X</issn><eissn>1546-3141</eissn><abstract>Second-opinion review of breast imaging studies can be a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether reinterpretation of studies obtained at institutions outside a cancer center influences clinical management, specifically by revealing additional cancer and preventing unnecessary biopsy. A review was conducted of breast imaging studies of 200 patients who underwent ultrasound and MRI at community facilities and had the images submitted for second opinions at a cancer center between January and April 2014. Each case was evaluated for concordance between the original report and the second-opinion interpretation. Second-opinion review resulting in the recommendation and performance of new biopsies was further subdivided into benign, high-risk, and malignant categories based on the histopathologic results obtained at the cancer center. Second-opinion review of the 200 cases showed a change in interpretation in 55 cases (28%; 95% CI, 21-34%). Overall, 26 recommendations (13%; 95% CI, 9-18%) led to a major change in management. Twenty new biopsies were performed, yielding 10 malignancies (5%; 95% CI, 2-9%) and four high-risk lesions (2%; 95% CI, 1-5%). Surgical management was changed to mastectomy for 6 of 10 patients (60%) with new sites of biopsy-proven malignancy. Eight biopsies were averted (4%; 95% CI, 2-8%) on the basis of benign interpretation of the imaging findings, and no disease was found at 1-year follow-up evaluation. Reinterpretation of studies obtained outside a cancer center resulted in a change in interpretation in more than one-fourth of submitted studies. Additional cancer was detected in 5% of patients, and biopsy was averted for 4%. The practice of second-opinion review influences clinical management and adds value to patient care.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>28301207</pmid><doi>10.2214/AJR.16.16871</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0361-803X
ispartof American journal of roentgenology (1976), 2017-06, Vol.208 (6), p.1386-1391
issn 0361-803X
1546-3141
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5588856
source American Roentgen Ray Society; MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Adult
Aged
Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology
Breast Neoplasms - pathology
Cancer Care Facilities - utilization
Female
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging - utilization
Middle Aged
New York - epidemiology
Observer Variation
Prevalence
Referral and Consultation - utilization
Reproducibility of Results
Risk Factors
Sensitivity and Specificity
Ultrasonography, Mammary - utilization
Utilization Review
title Second-Opinion Review of Breast Imaging at a Cancer Center: Is It Worthwhile?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T19%3A40%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Second-Opinion%20Review%20of%20Breast%20Imaging%20at%20a%20Cancer%20Center:%20Is%20It%20Worthwhile?&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20roentgenology%20(1976)&rft.au=Coffey,%20Kristen&rft.date=2017-06-01&rft.volume=208&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1386&rft.epage=1391&rft.pages=1386-1391&rft.issn=0361-803X&rft.eissn=1546-3141&rft_id=info:doi/10.2214/AJR.16.16871&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1878824983%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1878824983&rft_id=info:pmid/28301207&rfr_iscdi=true