Specialized Second Opinion Interpretations of Breast Imaging: Impact on Additional Workup and Management

Multidisciplinary boards: Survey on the current situation and needs of Spanish radiologists

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The increasing participation of radiologists in multidisciplinary boards brings about advantages, challenges and specific needs. The aim of this paper is to identify the boards in which radiologists participate and to detect the needs, problems and opportunities that these boards pose for our specialty.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The Spanish Society of Medical Radiology (SERAM) conducted an ad-hoc survey that was distributed among members and through social networks. The results were analysed with Stata® v14.2 (StataCorp, Texas, USA).

RESULTS

Between 15 November 2022 and 24 December 2022, we received 743 anonymous responses with 93.7% coming from SERAM members (642 radiologists and 101 radiology trainees). Among the specialists, 82.7% regularly participate in one or more boards (92.5% oncology/50.7% non-oncology/43.3% both), which implies two or more meetings per week for 41.6% of the respondents. Both radiologists who regularly participate in boards and those who do not, are very positive about this aspect of professional activity and agree on its benefits. However, the specialists who do participate, lack enough allocated time and information to prepare cases prior to the meeting. Although attendance is often recorded (69.7%), it is generally not included in the work plan (20.5% of physicians and 30.8% of middle managers, p = 0.028). Regarding operational functioning, according to 46.9% of respondents there is no record of imaging tests reviewed, and the handling of discrepancies within radiology departments is poor (written recommendations and review sessions are only available to 14.3% and 7.7% of respondents respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The radiologists surveyed report the high impact of multidisciplinary committees on their workload and clinical decisions. They mention a number of problems, some of which are specific to radiology, which can undermine efficiency and safety. These include work organisation, lack of time and problems of accessibility and the recording of imaging tests and other medical record data.

Can Pre-biopsy Second-Look Breast Ultrasound Affect Clinical Management? Experience From a Single Tertiary Hospital

Objectives

Interpretation discrepancy is a major disadvantage of breast imaging. This study aimed to determine the clinical benefit of the pre-biopsy second-look breast ultrasound (US).

Methods

Patients with suspicious breast masses referred to our tertiary hospital for US-guided breast biopsy were retrospectively reviewed between August 2017 and November 2019. Here, second-look assessments were performed by experienced specialized breast radiologists via performing a bilateral breast US scan plus reviewing former imaging studies, and results were compared with the initial assessment. Interpretation changes in terms of biopsy recommendation and surgical management (i.e., lumpectomy to mastectomy) were analyzed.

Results

A total of 537 patients were enrolled in this study. Interpretation discrepancies occurred in 109 patients (20%; 95% CI, 17%–24%). Among them, there were 84 patients (16%; 95% CI, 13%–19%) whose masses were re-classified as BI-RADS 3 by the second-look US and underwent 2-year follow-up, showing 82 benign, 1 malignant, and 1 high-risk lesions. On the other hand, 16 patients (3%; 95% CI, 2%–5%) undertook biopsy at an additional site, identifying 10 new malignant lesions, 3 high-risk lesions, and 3 benign lesions, resulting in surgical management changes in 12 patients. In addition, nine (2%; 95% CI, 1%–3%) patients received discrepant disease ranges, which also altered surgical management. Overall, 21 patients (4%; 95% CI, 3%–6%) got their surgical management altered by the second-look US.

Conclusion

Pre-biopsy second-look assessment of breast US can reduce unnecessary biopsies in 16% of patients and alter surgical management in 4% of patients, suggesting it is a practical and valuable method for patient care improvement.

Variations and Challenges to Performing Outside Study Interpretations in Breast Imaging: A National Survey of the Society of Breast Imaging Membership

OBJECTIVE

Second-opinion interpretations of outside facility breast imaging provide value-added care but are operationally challenging for breast radiologists. Our objective was to survey members of the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) to assess practice patterns and perceived barriers to performing outside study interpretations (OSIs).

METHODS

An anonymous survey was developed by the Patient Care and Delivery Committee of the SBI and distributed via e-mail to SBI radiologist members. Survey questions included practice demographics and OSI volumes, billing practices, clinical scenarios, and imaging modalities, logistics, and barriers. Responses were aggregated and comparisons were made by univariate analysis using likelihood ratio tests, t-tests, and Spearman's rank correlation tests as appropriate. Ordinal or nominal logistic modeling and linear regression modeling was also performed.

RESULTS

There were 371 responses (response rate of 13%). Most respondents practice at an affiliated specialty breast care center (306/371, 83%) and said their practice performed OSIs (256/371, 69%). Academic practices reported the highest OSI volumes (median 75 per month) and were most likely to indicate increases in OSI volumes over time (100/144, 69%). The most common indication for OSI was second opinion for a biopsy recommendation (245/256, 96%). Most practices provide a final BI-RADS assessment (183/261, 70%). The most cited barrier to performing OSIs was physician time constraints (252/369, 68%).

CONCLUSION

Breast imaging OSI practice patterns are variable among SBI members with notable differences by practice setting and multiple barriers identified. More unified guidelines and recommendations may be needed for radiologists to better perform this valuable task.

Value of Second-Opinion Interpretation of Outside-Facility Breast Imaging Studies to a Radiology Department and Cancer Center

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to estimate the physician work effort for formal written breast radiology second-opinion reports of imaging performed at outside facilities, to compare this effort with a per-report credit system, and to estimate the downstream value of subsequent services provided by the radiology department and institution at a National Comprehensive Cancer Network-designated comprehensive cancer center.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of consecutive reports for "outside film review" from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2018. The number and types of breast imaging studies reinterpreted for each individual patient request were tabulated for requests for a 3-month sample from each year. Physician effort was estimated on the basis of the primary interpretation CMS fee schedule for work relative value units (wRVUs) for the study-specific Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code and study type. This effort was compared with the interpreting radiologist credit of 0.44 wRVUs per report. Subsequent imaging and evaluation and management encounters generated by these second-opinion patient requests were tracked through June 30, 2019.

RESULTS

For the 3-year period reviewed, 2,513 unique patient requests were identified, averaging 837 per fiscal year. For January to March of 2016, 2017, and 2018, 645 unique patient reports were identified. For these reports, 2,216 studies were reinterpreted, with an estimated physician effort of 2,660 wRVUs compared with 284 wRVUs on the basis of per-report credit. The range of annualized wRVUs for all outside studies interpreted and credited per specific CPT code was 3,135 to 3,804 (mean, 3,547). However, the institutional relative value unit credit received for fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017, on the basis of the number of patient requests, was only 385, 375, and 345 wRVUs, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the substantial work effort necessary to provide formal second-opinion interpretations for breast imaging studies at a National Comprehensive Cancer Network cancer center. The authors believe that these data support billing for the study-specific CPT code and crediting the radiologist with the full wRVUs for each study reinterpreted.

Repeat Breast Ultrasound Demonstrates Utility with Added Cancer Detection in Patients following Breast Imaging Second Opinion Recommendations

Purpose

Second opinion consultation for patients with suspicious findings on breast imaging and patients with known breast cancer is not uncommon. We sought to determine the frequency of second opinion breast and axillary ultrasound imaging review and the subsequent impact on clinical management.

Materials and Methods

An IRB-approved retrospective chart review was conducted on 400 consecutive patients with second opinion radiology interpretations performed by subspecialized breast radiologists at a designated cancer center, including mammogram and ultrasound review. The outside institution imaging reports were compared with second opinion reports to categorize ultrasound review discrepancies which were defined as any BI-RADS category change. The discrepancy frequency, relevant alterations in patient management, and added cancer detection were measured.

Results

The second opinion imaging review resulted in discrepant findings in 108/400 patients (27%). Patients with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts had higher discrepancy frequency (36% discrepancy, 68/187) than those with almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular breast tissue (19% discrepancy, 40/213) with P = 0.0001. Discrepancies resulted in the following changes in impression/recommendations: 70 repeat ultrasounds for better characterization of a breast lesion, 11 repeat ultrasounds of a negative region, 20 repeat ultrasounds for benign axillary lymph nodes, 5 downgrades from probably benign to benign, and 2 upgrades from benign to suspicious. Repeat ultrasounds of the axilla in 19 patients resulted in 13 biopsy recommendations, and 4 were metastatic (PPV3 31%). In the breast, repeat ultrasounds in 81 patients resulted in 14 upgrades to suspicious. Of these, 5 yielded malignancy. In addition, one patient was upgraded from benign to suspicious based on the outside image, with pathology revealing malignancy (breast PPV3 40%). Breast lesion BI-RADS category downgrades in 27 patients resulted in 10 avoided biopsies. Ultimately, second opinion ultrasound review resulted in altered management in 12% of patients (47/400). This included discovery of additional breast malignancies in 6 patients, metastatic lymph nodes in 4 patients, excisional biopsy for atypia in 1 patient, 4 patients proceeding to mastectomy, 10 patients who avoided biopsies, and 22 patients who avoided follow-up of benign findings.

Conclusions

In this study, subspecialized second opinion ultrasound review had an impact on preventing unnecessary procedures and follow-up exams in 8% of patients while detecting additional cancer in 2.5%.

Prospective Analysis of Radiology Resource Utilization and Outcomes for Participation in Oncology Multidisciplinary Conferences

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Radiology participation is necessary in oncology multidisciplinary conferences (MDCs), but the resources required to do so are often unaccounted for. In this prospective study we provide an analysis of resource utilization as a function of outcomes for all MDCs covered by an entire radiology section and provide a time-based cost estimate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Following institutional review board approval, prospective data on all MDCs covered by abdominal radiologists at a single tertiary care academic center were obtained over nine weeks. A predefined questionnaire was used by a single observer who attended every imaging review and recorded the total time spent by the radiologists and several outcome measures. The total time recorded was used to provide a time-based cost estimate using a national salary survey.

RESULTS

Six radiologists participated in a total of 57 MDCs, with 577 cases reviewed and discussed. 181 (31%) cases were performed at outside facilities requiring full reinterpretation. Clinically significant revisions to original reports were recorded in 107 (18.5%) cases. Radiologist input directly resulted in alteration of cancer staging in 65 (11%) patients and specific recommendations for follow-up diagnostic workup in 280 (48%) of cases. The mean total time devoted by the staff radiologist per week to MDCs was 18.7 hours/week, nearly a half of full-time effort, or 8% of total effort per radiologist. The total annual projected cost of radiology coverage for each weekly MDC was $26,920.

CONCLUSION

Section-wide radiologist participation in MDCs directly resulted in change in clinical management in nearly half of reviewed cases. This was achieved at a notable time cost, highlighting the need for efficient integration of radiology MDC participation into radiologist workflow and compensation models.

Impact of Second Opinions in Breast Cancer Diagnostics and Treatment: A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer care is becoming increasingly complex, and patients with breast cancer are increasingly aware of the different treatment options, resulting in requests for second opinions (SOs). The current study investigates the impact of breast cancer SOs on final diagnosis and treatment in the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NCI) using a newly designed Breast Cancer Second Opinion (BCSO) classification system.

METHODS

Patients who visited the NCI for an SO between October 2015 and September 2016 were included. Demographics, diagnostics, and treatment proposals were compared between first and SO. Discrepancy was categorized using our BCSO classification system, categorizing SOs into (1) noncomparable, (2) identical, and (3) minor or (4) major discrepancy.

RESULTS

The majority of SOs (n = 591) were patient initiated (90.7%). A total of 121 patients underwent treatment prior to their SO, leaving 470 patients for assessment of discrepancies according to our BCSO classification system. More than 45% of these SOs resulted in at least one discrepancy, with comparable rates for physician- and patient-initiated SOs (42.5% vs. 45.6%, p = 0.708). Significantly more discrepancies were observed in patients with additional imaging (51.3% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.002) and biopsies (53.7% vs. 40.3%, p = 0.005). Almost 60% of all discrepancies were categorized as major (neoadjuvant systemic treatment instead of primary surgery, breast-conserving surgery instead of mastectomy, and proposing postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show substantial differences in diagnostic and treatment options in breast cancer patients visiting the Netherlands Cancer Institute for an SO, thereby emphasizing more consensus for the indications of these treatment modalities.

[Systematic second opinion review of outside imaging in breast cancer diagnosis: An added value]

INTRODUCTION

The systematic second opinion review in cancer centers after breast cancer detection is currently under development. The purposes were the evaluation of review's consequences, in particularly of the axillary staging and the evolution of the delays.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on patients who consulted a clinician at Cancer Center of Lorraine in Nancy from January 1st, 2016 to December 31th, 2016. We analyzed from their medical charts: the outside exams, the initial therapeutic plan, the second opinion review, the additional exams, the multidisciplinary consultation conclusions, the first treatment, the multidisciplinary consultation after surgery.

RESULTS

In all, 251 patients were analyzed. Second opinion review discrepancies were seen in 72.5%. As a result, 43.4% of all patients had new breast-axillary biopsies. New malignancies lesions were identified in 19.9% of patients. Modifications in therapeutic plan were recommended in 19.9% of patients (including patients with and without new malignancies lesions diagnosed). Before a second opinion review, 9.8% of axillary ultrasound lead to a positive fine-needle biopsy. The additional exams identified 9.6% additional lesions. After a positive sentinel lymph node excision biopsy, the multidisciplinary consultation recommended a revision surgery of axillary lymph node dissection for 27% of patients with axillary ultrasound performed in our cancer center, and for 70% of patients without ultrasound (P=0.023).

DISCUSSION

The systematic second opinion at cancer center allows the detection of new malignancies lesions and significant modifications in the therapeutic plan. A systematic evaluation of axillary ultrasound in cancer center could be considered.

Specialized Second Opinion Review of Breast MRI Impacts Management and Increases Cancer Detection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study is to determine MRI review discrepancy frequency and the subsequent impact on patient management for patients pursuing breast imaging second opinions.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted on 1,000 consecutive patients with second opinion radiology interpretations performed by subspecialty-trained breast radiologists at a dedicated cancer center July 1 through December 31, 2016. Of these, 205 included review of outside breast MRI. Outside imaging reports were compared with second opinion reports to categorize breast MRI review discrepancies. These included relevant BI-RADS category changes or identification of additional extent of disease >4 cm. The discrepancy frequency, relevant alterations in patient management, and incremental cancer detection were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Discrepant second opinion breast MRI review was seen in 36 of 205 patients (18%). Additional cancer was detected through image-guided biopsy in 3 of these 36 patients and through excision in 2 (5 of 205, 2%). Additionally, five biopsies yielded high-risk pathologic results without upstage on excision. Findings suspicious for additional extent of disease >4 cm were noted in five patients (2%) treated with mastectomies. Finally, five patients had BI-RADS category downgrades. Ultimately, completion of second opinion MRI review recommendations resulted in altered management in 10% of patients (20 of 205). The absence of prior imaging studies for comparison was associated with increased discrepancy frequency (P = .005).

CONCLUSION

Second opinion breast MRI review by subspecialized breast imaging radiologists increases cancer detection and results in clinically relevant changes in patient management.

Obtaining a second opinion is a neglected source of health care inequalities

Observational studies have detected discrepancies between two expert interpreters of imaging and histopathological studies. Furthermore, in a substantial proportion of patients, an independent second opinion disagreed with the first one. Therefore, it is widely accepted that patients have a right to obtain a second opinion and, in case of divergent opinions, to deliberate and choose the option that they believe is most consistent with their individual circumstances. However, doctors are less likely to inform old and poorly educated patients about the possibility of seeking a second opinion, and this may contribute to healthcare inequalities. Hence the importance of (a) promoting doctors’ self-awareness of a possible tendency to discriminate against old and poorly educated patients, and (b) creating programs within the healthcare system that would help patients in seeking a second opinion, suggest specialists for the specific problem of the patient, and provide tools to reconcile between discrepant opinions.