The Second Opinion of a Pathologist Can Influence The Change in the Pathological Diagnosis By More Than 10% of Breast Cancer Patients.

The importance of the second opinion for the most effective application of cancer treatment is revealed by new studies every day. For example, in the study of today's article, pathology reports of the tumors of 1970 breast cancer patients for one year were compared with the final pathology reports given after a second review. As a result of the study, significant differences were found in more than 10% of the patients, called inconsistencies that would affect the treatment.

As a result of the second examination of the breast tumor tissue samples, the most critical areas of difference are the histological category (66 cases, 33%) and biomarker reporting (50 cases, 25%). The most problematic diagnostic types are; intraductal lesions, lobular carcinoma, metaplastic carcinoma, and phyllodes tumors. The most significant difference in the biomarker-profile category is in interpretation, but in 20% of discordant cases, the findings were supported by repeating immunohistochemical analyzes.

The results show that a second opinion is essential for the most effective treatment of patients.

The research results have highlighted that the second opinion is a way to ensure the clarity of critical diagnostic information when the pathology report is finalized. In this way, the necessary effective treatment can be applied.

Another critical point is that when the report is reviewed for the second time, the pathologist should report the findings, which are found to be different, as a second opinion, without making it a matter of pride. It should be known that reviewing the findings that are difficult to perceive in pathology is extremely common. The net results obtained are significant enough to cause a change in the patient's treatment.

In summary, this and similar studies are increasing daily, and the importance of a second opinion in cancer treatment is better understood. Remember, cancer is not a disease that develops in a week or two; there is always time to get a second opinion. Changes in diagnosis after the second opinion should be interpreted and reported.