Impact of a remote second opinion program on changes in recommended treatment plans for patients with cancer across the U.S.

386 Background: Second opinion consultations are a promising strategy to identify errors in diagnosis and recommend the optimal course of treatment for the patient. Yet, there are several barriers to patients accessing second opinions, including geographic barriers. By bringing high-level care to patients where they live, remote second opinion programs might benefit populations without access to subspecialty cancer centers, including those from underserved communities. While meaningful changes from in-person second opinions have been observed at several institutions, little is known about how often remote second opinions lead to similar improvements in treatment plans. Thus, our objective was to examine the extent to which the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) remote second opinion program led to changes in treatment plans for cancer patients residing across the U.S. Methods: MSK is a high-volume cancer center based in NYC. MSK’s remote second opinion program was developed and rolled out as part of a national cancer benefits solution in 2016. Each second opinion review process is conducted by an MSK subspecialist and enabled by a customized digital platform. The process is asynchronous. To capture subspecialists’ perceptions of the importance of any changes to diagnosis or treatment recommended, we designed and administered a questionnaire starting in December 2023 that subspecialists completed after each case. Here, we report summary findings from the first 100 second opinion cases with complete information from this questionnaire. Results: These 100 case reviews were completed between December 2023 and April 2024. Spanning cancer types, the cases were reviewed by 49 unique subspecialists. There were 17 patients with breast cancer, 9 with colon cancer, 9 with lymphoma, 9 with prostate cancer, 7 with endometrial cancer, 7 with squamous cell carcinoma, 6 with myeloma, 5 with ovarian cancer, and 31 with one of 18 other cancer types. Patients had a mean age of 57 years (median 58) and 61% were female. Patients were from 27 different U.S. states. Of the 100 cases reviewed, subspecialists made a “meaningful change” (expected to affect patient outcomes) in recommended treatment, in 39 cases (39%). These meaningful changes included better prognosis / survival (n=26, 67%), reduced short-term morbidity / quality of life / toxicity (n=17, 44%), or improved long-term morbidity / quality of life / toxicity (n=29, 74%). There was a higher percent of recommended changes for liquid tumor cases compared to solid tumor cases (11/17, 65% for liquid; 28/83, 34% for solid). Conclusions: Findings are crucial for understanding potential opportunities to grow remote second opinion programs to benefit patients. This information is also essential for identifying the most effective strategies to reach underserved communities with geographic access barriers to high-quality subspecialty cancer care.