Second opinions

Memorial Sloan Kettering's Remote Cancer Second Opinion, Reviewed

Save

A cancer second opinion is often really a second read of your scans and slides, where borderline calls vary the most between pathologists. This review covers what a remote review from a center like Memorial Sloan Kettering does, whether it will upset your own oncologist, what the research says it changes, and where re-reading the imaging and the biopsy matters most before treatment begins.

Last updated: July 2026

Talk to a clinician

Gale can help you find a clinician in your state and request a visit.

Find care →

What Memorial Sloan Kettering's remote cancer second opinion offers

It is a records-and-specimens review by cancer specialists, delivered without a visit. You submit the pathology, the scans, and your treatment history; oncology subspecialists in your tumor type examine the material; and you receive a written opinion on the diagnosis and the plan. Because Memorial Sloan Kettering focuses on cancer, the reviewers are cancer experts working in tumor-specific teams. The underlying format is the same one other academic centers use — Cleveland Clinic's virtual service, for instance, has specialists review submitted records and return a written report, sometimes with a virtual visit 1 — but a cancer center concentrates that expertise on oncology. What you get is a considered second read, not a new treating relationship, unless you later decide to transfer your care.

Will asking upset my oncologist?

This is the fear that stops people, and it is largely misplaced. Patient-education guidance from the American Cancer Society describes seeking a second opinion as a normal, expected part of cancer care that most doctors support, and it notes that patients are entitled to copies of their records and pathology materials to do it 2. A confident oncologist has usually welcomed a second read on hard cases throughout their career. If a doctor reacts badly to the request, many people find that reaction is itself useful information. You do not need permission to obtain your own records, and asking for a second opinion does not end the relationship with your first team — most people return to them with the plan confirmed.

What changes when a cancer center reviews your case

Usually the plan, not the diagnosis. A study of 120 newly diagnosed cancers across four disease types found clinically meaningful changes in 35% of cases, and most of those occurred even when the original diagnosis was confirmed — the value was in refining treatment, not correcting the label 3. That reframes what a second opinion is for. For most people it confirms the diagnosis, which is worth having before months of treatment, and for a sizable minority it adjusts what that treatment should be. A cancer second opinion is as much about getting the treatment right as about confirming the diagnosis — and a confirmed diagnosis is a genuine result.

Re-reading the scans and the slides

The technical heart of a cancer review is a second read of the imaging and the pathology, and both disagree with the first read more often than people expect. When subspecialists re-reviewed 240 outside PET-CT scans, they gave a discordant opinion about cancer in 13% of cases, and where the truth was later established, the subspecialist read was correct in 89% 4. Pathology varies too: routine re-review of 667 head and neck cancer specimens found 22% discordant with the outside assessment 5. Borderline breast lesions are the sharpest example — across 240 breast biopsies, pathologists agreed with an expert reference on invasive cancer almost always but on atypia only 48% of the time 6. This is why a cancer center wants the actual slides and images, not just the reports written from them.

Which cancers benefit most from a remote review

The harder the call, the more a specialist read is worth. Rare tumors, borderline biopsies like atypia, and cases where the recommended treatment is aggressive are where a cancer center's volume changes the odds — a subspecialist who sees a rare pattern weekly reads it differently from a generalist who sees it once a year. For a common cancer with a clear diagnosis and a standard regimen, a formal remote review adds less, and your own team may resolve the question in a conversation. The practical test is whether a different read would change the treatment you are about to start. When the biopsy is ambiguous or the plan is drastic, a cancer second opinion earns its place; when it is neither, the reassurance may be the main thing you are buying.

What to confirm before you send your records

Before you commit, pin down the specifics that vary by program. Confirm that they review your cancer type; the current fee and what it covers; the turnaround, which matters when treatment is pending; whether they need the pathology slides or only the report; and whether a video visit is included. Assemble the pathology, the imaging files, and your records early, since the slowest part is usually moving material between offices. If you are comparing centers, seeing remote programs compared side by side, and reading the remote second opinion cost breakdown, helps; the md anderson second opinion is another cancer-focused program people weigh alongside this one.

Common questions

You send your pathology, imaging, and treatment records, and oncology subspecialists in your tumor type review the material and write an opinion on the diagnosis and the plan. There is no in-person exam, so the review rests on what you submit. Some programs add a video visit for questions. The deliverable is a written expert opinion, not a transfer of your care.

No. Seeking a second opinion is your decision, and you do not need approval to request your own records. Most oncologists expect it, especially before major treatment, and treat it as another expert read rather than a challenge. You are entitled to copies of your records and pathology, and asking does not sever the relationship with your first team.

Because in cancer the diagnosis is in the tissue, and a second read of the glass slides can change borderline calls that a written report cannot convey. Pathologists disagree most on ambiguous findings like atypia. The lab holding your slides releases them on your written request and sends them to the reviewing center, which then examines them directly rather than trusting the summary.

For a cancer diagnosis, which turns largely on pathology and imaging, a remote review examines the same slides and scans an in-person visit would, and often reaches the same conclusion. An in-person evaluation matters more when a physical exam or a procedure is needed to decide. Many people get the remote opinion first and travel only if the case requires hands-on assessment.

Most of the wait is records and slides arriving; once the file is complete, a written opinion often comes back within a couple of weeks, and urgent cases are frequently prioritized. For most cancers, a short pause to confirm the diagnosis and plan does not affect the outcome and can prevent the wrong treatment. Ask both teams how fast the review can move if timing is tight.

Related

Say it back

How would you explain this to someone you love?

Two or three sentences, just as you’d say it. Gale reflects back what you focused on — a mirror, not a quiz.

Talk to a clinician

Gale can help you find a clinician in your state and request a visit.

Find care →

When symptoms cannot wait for a review

  • —A fever of 100.4°F or higher while on chemotherapy, which can mean a dangerous infection
  • —Sudden severe shortness of breath, chest pain, or coughing up blood
  • —A sudden severe headache, new confusion, one-sided weakness, or a seizure
  • —Heavy or uncontrolled bleeding, or new severe pain that will not settle

A written second opinion is for planning, not emergencies; for sudden severe symptoms like these, call 911 or go to the nearest emergency room, and contact your oncology team's urgent line.

This article explains how remote cancer second-opinion programs generally work and what the research shows. It is educational, not medical advice, and it does not diagnose, endorse, or rank any program; an opinion on your case can come only from clinicians reviewing your actual records. Confirm current details directly with any program you consider.

References

  1. 1.Cleveland Clinic (2025). Virtual Second Opinions. Cleveland Clinic (my.clevelandclinic.org). link ✓Cited for the documented academic-center remote second-opinion format: specialists review a patient's submitted records and return a written report, sometimes with a virtual visit.
  2. 2.American Cancer Society (2024). Seeking a Second Opinion. American Cancer Society (cancer.org). link ✓Cited for the point that seeking a second opinion is a normal, expected part of cancer care that most doctors support, and that patients are entitled to copies of their records and pathology materials.
  3. 3.Lipitz-Snyderman A, et al. (2023). Clinical value of second opinions in oncology: A retrospective review of changes in diagnosis and treatment recommendations. Cancer Medicine. doi:10.1002/cam4.5598 ✓Cited for the finding that oncology second opinions produced clinically meaningful changes in 35% of 120 newly diagnosed cancers, most occurring even when the original diagnosis was confirmed.
  4. 4.Ulaner GA, Mannelli L, Dunphy M (2017). Value of second-opinion review of outside institution PET-CT examinations. Nuclear Medicine Communications. doi:10.1097/MNM.0000000000000647 ✓Cited for the finding that subspecialist re-review of 240 outside PET-CT scans gave a discordant opinion of malignancy in 13% of cases and was correct in 89% where the truth was later known.
  5. 5.Zhu GA, Lira R, Colevas AD (2016). Discordance in routine second opinion pathology review of head and neck oncology specimens: A single-center five year retrospective review. Oral Oncology. doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2015.11.018 ✓Cited for the finding that routine second-opinion re-review of 667 head and neck cancer specimens was discordant with the outside assessment in 22% of cases.
  6. 6.Elmore JG, Longton GM, Carney PA, Geller BM, Onega T, Tosteson ANA, Nelson HD, Pepe MS, Allison KH, Schnitt SJ, O'Malley FP, Weaver DL (2015). Diagnostic Concordance Among Pathologists Interpreting Breast Biopsy Specimens. JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.1405 ✓Cited for the finding that across 240 breast biopsies, pathologist agreement with an expert reference was high for invasive cancer but only 48% for atypia, showing that borderline lesion reads vary substantially.

6 sources, numbered by first appearance. General health information, not medical advice. AI-assisted editorial content — every citation independently verified. Editorial policy

← Back to the health library