Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

German second-opinion network for testicular cancer: Sealing the leaky pipe between evidence and clinical practice

  • Friedemann Zengerling
  • , Michael Hartmann
  • , Axel Heidenreich
  • , Susanne Krege
  • , Peter Albers
  • , Alexander Karl
  • , Lothar Weissbach
  • , Walter Wagner
  • , Jens Bedke
  • , Margitta Retz
  • , Hans U. Schmelz
  • , Sabine Kliesch
  • , Markus Kuczyk
  • , Eva Winter
  • , Tobias Pottek
  • , Klaus Peter Dieckmann
  • , Andres Jan Schrader
  • , Mark Schrader
  • University Medical Center Ulm and Center of Excellence 'Metabolic Disorders'
  • University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf
  • RWTH Aachen University
  • Alexianer Hospital Krefeld
  • Heinrich-Heine-University
  • University of Munich
  • Men's Health Foundation
  • Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Hamburg
  • Universitätsklinikum Tübingen
  • Bundeswehr Central Hospital
  • Universitätsklinikum Münster
  • Hannover Medical School
  • Helios Kliniken Schwerin
  • Department of Urology, Asklepios Westklinikum
  • Albertinen-Krankenhaus Hamburg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

28 Scopus citations

Abstract

In 2006, the German Testicular Cancer Study Group initiated an extensive evidence-based national second-opinion network to improve the care of testicular cancer patients. The primary aims were to reflect the current state of testicular cancer treatment in Germany and to analyze the project's effect on the quality of care delivered to testicular cancer patients. A freely available internet-based platform was developed for the exchange of data between the urologists seeking advice and the 31 second-opinion givers. After providing all data relevant to the primary treatment decision, urologists received a second opinion on their therapy plan within <48 h. Endpoints were congruence between the first and second opinion, conformity of applied therapy with the corresponding recommendation and progression-free survival rate of the introduced patients. Significance was determined by two-sided Pearson's χ2 test. A total of 1,284 second-opinion requests were submitted from November 2006 to October 2011, and 926 of these cases were eligible for further analysis. A discrepancy was found between first and second opinion in 39.5% of the cases. Discrepant second opinions led to less extensive treatment in 28.1% and to more extensive treatment in 15.6%. Patients treated within the framework of the second-opinion project had an overall 2-year progression-free survival rate of 90.4%. Approximately every 6th second opinion led to a relevant change in therapy. Despite the lack of financial incentives, data from every 8th testicular cancer patient in Germany were submitted to second-opinion centers. Second-opinion centers can help to improve the implementation of evidence into clinical practice.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2477-2481
Number of pages5
JournalOncology Reports
Volume31
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2014

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • Quality of care
  • Second-opinion network
  • Testicular cancer
  • Treatment scope

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'German second-opinion network for testicular cancer: Sealing the leaky pipe between evidence and clinical practice'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this