CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 43Breast Cancer Treatment StudiesBreast Lesions and CarcinomasPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Results of the Lynn Sage Second‐Opinion Program for local therapy in patients with breast carcinoma: Changes in management and determinants of where care is delivered

Clauson, Jennifer, Hsieh, Y. C., Acharya, Simbi, Rademaker, Alfred W., Morrow, Monica·2002·Cancer
DOI 10.1002/cncr.10318
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The treatment options of breast conservation therapy (BCT) and immediate reconstruction for patients with carcinoma of the breast have not been adopted widely. The objectives of this study were to determine how often a second opinion on the local therapy of breast carcinoma changed patient management and to identify factors predictive of remaining at the second‐opinion site for therapy. METHODS: Two hundred thirty‐one patients with intraductal carcinoma or Stage I and II breast carcinoma were reviewed retrospectively. At the time of the second opinion, patients completed a questionnaire regarding their initial surgical opinion and the reason for seeking consultation. RESULTS: Only 46% of patients had a complete discussion of treatment options prior to the second opinion. The second opinion changed management in 54 patients (20.3%). The most common finding was eligibility for BCT in patients who were offered only mastectomy. Definitive local therapy occurred at the second‐opinion site in 65.8% of patients. The only predictors of remaining at the second‐opinion site were insurance type (P = 0.008) and the patient's perception that options were not discussed at the initial opinion (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Second opinions provide useful information to patients and may change the management of their disease. They result in significant patient capture for an institution. Cancer 2002;94:889–94. © 2002 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.10318

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.10318

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • It is estimated that the error rate of cancer histopathology can be as high as 23%.

    “This is important, as it is estimated that the error rate of cancer histopathology can be as high as 23% (20–23).”

    From Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data (2016) · cites this paper as [20]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Clauson, J., Hsieh, Y. C., Acharya, S., Rademaker, A. W., & Morrow, M.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Morrow, Monica
ORCID
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-02-15
Volume
94
Issue
4
Pages
889-894
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
DOI
10.1002/cncr.10318
OpenAlex
W1572056027
Cited by
43
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
0.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 5 d)
Locations
  • Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P50CA089018)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Breast Lesions and Carcinomas
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
second opinion, breast cancer, breast-conserving therapy, breast reconstruction, local therapy, intraductal carcinoma, mastectomy, patient satisfaction, insurance type, patient retention
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Breast Neoplasms, Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Patient Care Planning, Patient Education as Topic, Referral and Consultation, Retrospective Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review