Liability for failure to order screening examinations

Can delayed time to referral to a tertiary level urologist with an abnormal PSA level affect subsequent Gleason grade in the opportunistically screened population?

PURPOSE

There is growing conflict in the literature describing the effect of delayed treatment on outcomes following radical prostatectomy. There is also evidence to suggest progression of low-risk prostate cancer to develop higher grades and volumes of prostate cancer during active surveillance. It is unknown as to what affect a delay in referral of those men with abnormal screened-PSA levels have on subsequent Gleason grade.

METHODS

We identified 350 men through our rapid access prostate clinic who underwent TRUS biopsy for abnormal age-related PSA and/or abnormal clinical examination. Clinicopathological findings were compared for those with positive versus negative TRUS biopsies, and for those with initial delays in referral (<12 months, 12-18 months, and >18 months). We used ANOVA and Student's t-tests amongst other statistical tools to examine significance of clinical findings.

RESULTS

Of the 350 men who underwent TRUS biopsy, those with a delay in referral of 12 months or more were significantly associated with higher PSA titers, clinically palpable disease and likelihood of diagnosis with prostate cancer. A delay of 18 months or more led to a significantly higher risk of being diagnosed with a leading grade 4 prostate cancer, which was further supported using PSA velocity as a diagnostic tool (change >0.4 ng/ml/year).

CONCLUSION

We recommend that repeated asymptomatic abnormal age-related PSA readings and/or abnormal clinical examination in the screened population be referred without delay to a urologist for further assessment, enrolment into an active surveillance program or definitive subsequent treatment.

Patient- and system-related barriers for the earlier diagnosis of colorectal cancer

Background

A cohort of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients represents an opportunity to study missed opportunities for earlier diagnosis. Primary objective: To study the epidemiology of diagnostic delays and failures to offer/complete CRC screening. Secondary objective: To identify system- and patient-related factors that may contribute to diagnostic delays or failures to offer/complete CRC screening.

Methods

Setting: Rural Veterans Administration (VA) Healthcare system. Participants: CRC cases diagnosed within the VA between 1/1/2000 and 3/1/2007. Data sources: progress notes, orders, and pathology, laboratory, and imaging results obtained between 1/1/1995 and 12/31/2007. Completed CRC screening was defined as a fecal occult blood test or flexible sigmoidoscopy (both within five years), or colonoscopy (within 10 years); delayed diagnosis was defined as a gap of more than six months between an abnormal test result and evidence of clinician response. A summary abstract of the antecedent clinical care for each patient was created by a certified gastroenterologist (GI), who jointly reviewed and coded the abstracts with a general internist (TW).

Results

The study population consisted of 150 CRC cases that met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 69.04 (range 35-91); 99 (66%) were diagnosed due to symptoms; 61 cases (46%) had delays associated with system factors; of them, 57 (38% of the total) had delayed responses to abnormal findings. Fifteen of the cases (10%) had prompt symptom evaluations but received no CRC screening; no patient factors were identified as potentially contributing to the failure to screen/offer to screen. In total, 97 (65%) of the cases had missed opportunities for early diagnosis and 57 (38%) had patient factors that likely contributed to the diagnostic delay or apparent failure to screen/offer to screen.

Conclusion

Missed opportunities for earlier CRC diagnosis were frequent. Additional studies of clinical data management, focusing on following up abnormal findings, and offering/completing CRC screening, are needed.

Screening and management of prostate cancer in elderly men: the Iowa Prostate Cancer Consensus

OBJECTIVES

The issue of prostate cancer screening and management is likely to assume greater importance with progressive aging of the population. Because there are no currently established guidelines for screening and management of prostate cancer in elderly men (older than 75 years), a multidisciplinary panel was convened to develop consensus recommendations.

METHODS

The panel consisted of experts in urology, internal medicine/geriatrics, medical oncology, radiation oncology, family practice, law, patient advocacy and physician assistants. Four internationally known experts on prostate cancer served as external advisors. Relevant literature was reviewed and consensus was developed based on expert opinion, given the lack of level I evidence regarding most aspects of prostate cancer diagnosis and management in men older than 75 years of age.

RESULTS

On the basis of the opinions of the expert panel, recommendations for screening and management of prostate cancer in elderly men older than 75 years of age was developed. In general, there was support for using greater discretion in screening for prostate cancer in elderly men. The lack of adequate patient education tools to facilitate discussion with patients was recognized. There was also agreement on the need for greater and renewed patient counseling regarding benefits and risks of prostate cancer screening beyond age 75.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to build consensus around a standardized approach to prostate cancer screening and management in older men. Promulgation of such consensus recommendations and their widespread adoption may help engender a tailored approach to managing prostate cancer in older men, thereby decreasing health care costs and morbidity while limiting unnecessary therapy.

Prevalence of delayed clinician response to elevated prostate-specific antigen values

OBJECTIVE

To assess the frequency of delayed response to an abnormal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of prostate cancer cases diagnosed between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2005, in a rural Department of Veterans Affairs health care system serving 44,000 veterans across 2 states. Clinician response was defined as a reference to the elevated PSA result in clinical notes, orders for further evaluation, treatment of presumed prostatitis, or a urology visit or referral. Delay was measured as days between an abnormal PSA result and clinician response.

RESULTS

We identified 327 men who met inclusion criteria with an abnormal PSA value before prostate cancer diagnosis. At first PSA elevation, median age was 64 years; 94% were younger than 75 years. Of the 327 men, 253 (77.4%) had a timely (< or =30 days) response to an abnormal PSA value; 23 (7.0%) had between 31 and 180 days; 24 (7.3%), between 181 and 360 days; and 27 (8.3%), more than 360 days between an abnormal PSA measurement and clinician response. The delayed group had nearly an additional year's (309 days) lapse before completed urologic consultation and prostate gland biopsy (313 days) as compared with the timely group. The presence of urologic symptoms, abnormal results from rectal examination, higher PSA values, and higher PSA velocity (P<.05) were associated with timely clinician response to an abnormal PSA measurement.

CONCLUSION

In a cohort of men with prostate cancer and an antecedent abnormal PSA value, 15.6% had more than 180 days between an abnormal PSA measurement and clinician response. These findings add to the growing literature demonstrating that missed results occur more frequently than is generally appreciated. Improved systems for clinical data management are needed.

Mammography screening after breast cancer diagnosis in a first degree female relative: age group differences (United States)

OBJECTIVES

To examine age group differences in predictors of mammography screening in women with a first-degree female relative (FDFR) with recent diagnosis of breast cancer.

METHODS

A cohort study of 577 women ages 18 and over with a FDFR diagnosed with incident stage 0-III breast cancer was conducted. Telephone interviews were conducted at baseline, 6 months and 12 months. Logistic regression was used to model factors associated with mammography screening since diagnosis.

RESULTS

Mammography rates were 32%, 71% and 75% for women aged 18-39, 40-49 and 50 and above, respectively. Among the youngest group, belief in cancer screening effectiveness, mammography history and MD recommendation predicted mammography. For those 40-49, excellent self-rated health, perceived similarity of personality to the patient and higher intrusive thoughts predicted mammography. Perceived similarity of health care utilization to the patient and higher risk perceptions were associated with mammography among women aged 50 and above.

CONCLUSIONS

Mammography rates were high among women aged 40-49 and 50 and above, and considerable among women aged 18-30, even in view of the lack of evidence-based guidelines. Continued attention should be paid to the 25-30% of older women who do not report screening.

Screening mammography, public perceptions, and medical liability

PURPOSE

To outline the most common sources of raising malpractice claims in screening mammography and to discuss the related medical litigation issues in the light of the evidence-based medicine.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

Electronic and manual search of the relevant literature.

RESULTS

The most common cause of malpractice is the delayed diagnosis of breast cancer. The plaintiff must establish that the radiologist was negligent and the delay in diagnosis caused injury to the patient. Literature shows that mammography does not always detect breast cancer, and even skilled radiologists may periodically miss malignant lesions. Also, delay in diagnosis does not always affect treatment and prognosis. Over-promotion of screening mammography has made disproportionately difficult for a defendant radiologist to prevail in a malpractice lawsuit. Thus, screening mammography is at stake, although it saves lives. The public and legal system should be educated about biological processes, medical practice, and the limitations of screening mammography.

CONCLUSION

If mammography is to survive medical litigation and continue to save lives a major reform in public perception, in the stance of the mass media, and in the ability of legal system to understand medicine is required. Physicians and medical associations have an important role to play.