Aadit P Shah, Siyu Shi, Thomas Y Sun, Manali I Patel, Sumit A Shah
{"title":"Virtual Second-Opinion Delivery for Oncology Patients.","authors":"Aadit P Shah, Siyu Shi, Thomas Y Sun, Manali I Patel, Sumit A Shah","doi":"10.1200/OP.24.00392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Patients with cancer face increasing difficulty securing access to timely, quality oncologic care. A virtual consultation program at a tertiary academic center could eliminate physical barriers while providing treatment recommendations that could be executed locally.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated an <i>Online Second Opinions Program</i> to increase access to expert care via a cloud-based platform through Included Health. This program was open to any patient globally who had a local treating physician. Patient records were compiled and sent to a disease expert at Stanford Healthcare. A report detailing an assessment and treatment recommendation was then returned within 3 days. We analyzed the characteristics of the patient base and the frequency with which treatment change was recommended.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between November 2018 and August 2020, 657 patients participated in the program. The majority of patients were female (58.4%) with a mean age of 60 years. A majority lived out-of-state (62%, with 24.7% of total patients from outside the United States) and had advanced disease (77.2% diagnosed at stage III or IV). Breast cancer was the most common diagnosis (24.7%). Physicians providing the virtual service were primarily medical oncologists (67.6%) and reported to have recommended a treatment change in more than half of the cases reviewed (53.8%). A treatment change was most often recommended for patients with stage II disease (64%), and least often for stage I and III disease (both 45%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to describe patients who use virtual second-opinion programs for oncology, showing that more than half of the patients were recommended to have a treatment change. Although patients most often had advanced disease, those with stage II disease most often received a treatment change recommendation.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"OP2400392"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO oncology practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.24.00392","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Patients with cancer face increasing difficulty securing access to timely, quality oncologic care. A virtual consultation program at a tertiary academic center could eliminate physical barriers while providing treatment recommendations that could be executed locally.
Methods: We evaluated an Online Second Opinions Program to increase access to expert care via a cloud-based platform through Included Health. This program was open to any patient globally who had a local treating physician. Patient records were compiled and sent to a disease expert at Stanford Healthcare. A report detailing an assessment and treatment recommendation was then returned within 3 days. We analyzed the characteristics of the patient base and the frequency with which treatment change was recommended.
Results: Between November 2018 and August 2020, 657 patients participated in the program. The majority of patients were female (58.4%) with a mean age of 60 years. A majority lived out-of-state (62%, with 24.7% of total patients from outside the United States) and had advanced disease (77.2% diagnosed at stage III or IV). Breast cancer was the most common diagnosis (24.7%). Physicians providing the virtual service were primarily medical oncologists (67.6%) and reported to have recommended a treatment change in more than half of the cases reviewed (53.8%). A treatment change was most often recommended for patients with stage II disease (64%), and least often for stage I and III disease (both 45%).
Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to describe patients who use virtual second-opinion programs for oncology, showing that more than half of the patients were recommended to have a treatment change. Although patients most often had advanced disease, those with stage II disease most often received a treatment change recommendation.