Second opinion strategies in breast pathology : a decision analysis addressing over-treatment, under-treatment, and care costs
Menée aux Etats-Unis auprès de 115 pathologistes, cette étude évalue, dans le cadre du diagnostic d'un cancer du sein, l'effet d'une seconde interprétation des résultats de biopsie sur le traitement de la maladie et le coût des soins
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.
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment , résumé, 2017