Published in:
01-01-2018 | Epidemiology
Second opinion strategies in breast pathology: a decision analysis addressing over-treatment, under-treatment, and care costs
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 1/2018
Login to get accessAbstract
Purpose
To estimate the potential near-term population impact of alternative second opinion breast biopsy pathology interpretation strategies.
Methods
Decision analysis examining 12-month outcomes of breast biopsy for nine breast pathology interpretation strategies in the U.S. health system. Diagnoses of 115 practicing pathologists in the Breast Pathology Study were compared to reference-standard-consensus diagnoses with and without second opinions. Interpretation strategies were defined by whether a second opinion was sought universally or selectively (e.g., 2nd opinion if invasive). Main outcomes were the expected proportion of concordant breast biopsy diagnoses, the proportion involving over- or under-interpretation, and cost of care in U.S. dollars within one-year of biopsy.
Results
Without a second opinion, 92.2% of biopsies received a concordant diagnosis. Concordance rates increased under all second opinion strategies, and the rate was highest (95.1%) and under-treatment lowest (2.6%) when all biopsies had second opinions. However, over-treatment was lowest when second opinions were sought selectively for initial diagnoses of invasive cancer, DCIS, or atypia (1.8 vs. 4.7% with no 2nd opinions). This strategy also had the lowest projected 12-month care costs ($5.907 billion vs. $6.049 billion with no 2nd opinions).
Conclusions
Second opinion strategies could lower overall care costs while reducing both over- and under-treatment. The most accurate cost-saving strategy required second opinions for initial diagnoses of invasive cancer, DCIS, or atypia.