Clinical Impact of Second-Opinion Musculoskeletal Subspecialty Interpretations During a Multidisciplinary Orthopedic Oncology Conference

To analyze the impact on clinical management when musculoskeletal radiologists render second-opinion consultations during multidisciplinary orthopedic oncology conference.

A PACS database was searched for secondary interpretations on outside MRI studies reviewed during a multidisciplinary orthopedic oncology conference from January 2014 to December 2016. Reports were compared with the original interpretations, when available. Reports were categorized using a 7-point scale: I (no discrepancy), II (undetected clinically insignificant abnormality), III (clinically insignificant difference in interpretation), IV (difference in imaging follow-up recommendation), V (equivocal initial interpretation with subsequent definitive subspecialty interpretation), VI (clinically significant difference in interpretation), VII (failure to detect a clinically significant abnormality).

A total of 409 patients met inclusion criteria, with an average age of 47.9 ± 19.2. There were 91 (22.2%) instances of discrepant interpretations resulting in clinically significant differences in management; 67 (16.4%) were category VI and 24 (5.9%) were category VII. An additional 72 subjects (17.6%) were identified as category IV and 28 (6.8%) as category V, yielding at total of 191 (46.7%) clinically relevant discrepancies. When pathology was available, the secondary consultations were concordant in 57 of 61 cases (93.4%) and the outside interpretations were concordant in 39 of 61 cases (63.9%, P < .05).

A 22.2% rate of clinically significant difference was observed between primary and secondary interpretations. The substantial rate of clinically relevant discrepancies demonstrates that subspecialty expertise often changed the primary diagnosis. Thus, by participating in a multidisciplinary team, subspecialty radiologists have a unique opportunity to help direct appropriate treatment plans.