A Tale of Two Pathways: Same-Surgeon Versus Different-Surgeon Resection After Second Surgical Opinion - Summary - MDSpire
Coming Soon: Introducing MDSpire News. Learn more
Conexiant’s news site is now MDSpire News. Learn more

Comparative Analysis of Surgical Resection Approaches: Same-Surgeon Versus Different-Surgeon Opinions After Second Surgical Evaluation

  • By

  • Areesh Mevawalla

  • Selamawit Woldesenbet

  • Azza Sarfraz

  • Qaidar Alizai

  • Meher Angez

  • Abdulaziz Elemosho

  • Odysseas P. Chatzipanagiotou

  • Timothy M. Pawlik

  • June 29, 2026

Share

Objective:

To examine older adults with GI cancers to determine whether claims-observed second surgical opinion (SSO) pathways, specifically SSO with same-surgeon resection versus SSO with different-surgeon resection, were differentially associated with surgical outcomes.

Approach:
  • Data Source: Linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare (SEER–Medicare) files from 2000 to 2019 were used to identify older adults with GI cancers.
  • Study Population: Included individuals aged 66–90 years at cancer diagnosis with primary malignancies of the liver, biliary tract, pancreas, colon, and rectum/rectosigmoid.
  • Exposure and Covariates: Primary exposure was receipt of an SSO, defined as evaluation-and-management claims from ≥ 2 unique surgeon NPIs related to the index GI cancer.
  • Outcomes of Interest: Primary utilization outcome was receipt of cancer-directed resection within 6 months of diagnosis; perioperative outcomes included major complications, 90-day all-cause mortality, and 90-day unplanned readmission.
Key Findings:
  • SSO pathways were classified into three categories: surgery without an SSO, SSO with same-surgeon resection, and SSO with different-surgeon resection, with varying outcomes observed across these groups.
  • The study aimed to provide data to inform patient counseling, referral practices, and system design in GI surgical care.
Interpretation:

The study seeks to characterize differences in surgical outcomes based on whether patients proceed with the same surgeon or a different surgeon after obtaining a second opinion.

Limitations:
  • The study does not capture the clinical content of the SSO or the rationale for changing surgeons.
  • Data is limited to older adults enrolled in Medicare, which may not represent the broader population.
Conclusion:

The findings aim to enhance understanding of the impact of second surgical opinions on surgical outcomes in older adults with GI cancers.

Original Source(s)

Related Content