Radhakrishnan Archana, Grande David, Mitra Nandita, Bekelman Justin, Stillson Christian, Pollack Craig Evan
Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Division of General Internal Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Cancer. 2017 May 15;123(6):1027-1034. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30412. Epub 2016 Nov 7.
Cancer patients are encouraged to obtain second opinions before starting treatment. Little is known about men with localized prostate cancer who seek second opinions, the reasons why, and the association with treatment and quality of care.
We surveyed men who were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the greater Philadelphia area from 2012 to 2014. Men were asked if they obtained a second opinion from a urologist, and the reasons why. We used multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate the relationship between second opinions and definitive prostate cancer treatment and perceived quality of care.
A total of 2386 men responded to the survey (adjusted response rate, 51.1%). After applying exclusion criteria, the final analytic cohort included 2365 respondents. Of these, 40% obtained second opinions, most commonly because they wanted more information about their cancer (50.8%) and wanted to be seen by the best doctor (46.3%). Overall, obtaining second opinions was not associated with definitive treatment or perceived quality of cancer care. Men who sought second opinions because they were dissatisfied with their initial urologist were less likely to receive definitive treatment (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.73), and men who wanted more information about treatment were less likely to report excellent quality of cancer care (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.99) compared with men who did not receive a second opinion.
Although a large proportion of men with localized prostate cancer obtained a second opinion, the reasons for doing so were not associated with treatment choice or perceived quality of cancer care. Future study is needed to determine when second opinions contribute to increasing the value of cancer care. Cancer 2017;123:1027-34. © 2016 American Cancer Society.
鼓励癌症患者在开始治疗前寻求第二种意见。对于寻求第二种意见的局限性前列腺癌男性患者、其寻求的原因以及与治疗和医疗质量的关联,我们知之甚少。
我们对2012年至2014年在大费城地区被诊断为局限性前列腺癌的男性进行了调查。询问男性是否从泌尿科医生那里获得了第二种意见以及原因。我们使用多变量逻辑回归模型来评估第二种意见与确定性前列腺癌治疗和感知医疗质量之间的关系。
共有2386名男性回复了调查(调整后的回复率为51.1%)。应用排除标准后,最终分析队列包括2365名受访者。其中,40%获得了第二种意见,最常见的原因是他们想了解更多关于自己癌症的信息(50.8%)以及想让最好的医生诊治(46.3%)。总体而言,获得第二种意见与确定性治疗或感知癌症医疗质量无关。因对最初的泌尿科医生不满意而寻求第二种意见的男性接受确定性治疗的可能性较小(优势比为0.49;95%置信区间为0.32 - 0.73),与未获得第二种意见的男性相比,想了解更多治疗信息的男性报告癌症医疗质量优秀的可能性较小(优势比为0.70;95%置信区间为0.49 - 0.99)。
尽管很大一部分局限性前列腺癌男性获得了第二种意见,但这样做的原因与治疗选择或感知癌症医疗质量无关。需要进一步研究以确定何时第二种意见有助于提高癌症医疗的价值。《癌症》2017年;123:1027 - 34。© 2016美国癌症协会