Breast cancer, mammography, and malpractice litigation: the controversies continue

Informatics Solutions to Mitigate Legal Risk Associated With Communication Failures

Communication failures are a documented cause of malpractice litigation against radiologists. As imaging volumes have increased, and with them the number of findings requiring further workup, radiologists are increasingly expected to communicate with ordering clinicians. However, communication may be unsuccessful for a variety of reasons that expose radiologists to potential malpractice risk. Informatics solutions have the potential to improve communication and decrease this risk. We discuss human-powered, purely automated, and hybrid approaches to closing the communications loop. In addition, we describe the Patient Test Results Information Act (Pennsylvania Act 112) and its implications for closing the loop on noncritical actionable findings.

Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

The practice of investigating pathological abnormalities in the breasts of females who are asymptomatic is primarily employed using X-ray mammography. The importance of breast screening is reflected in the mortality-based benefits observed among females who are found to possess invasive breast carcinoma prior to the manifestation of clinical symptoms. It is estimated that population-based screening constitutes a 17% reduction in the breast cancer mortality rate among females affected by invasive breast carcinoma. In spite of the significant utility that screening confers in those affected by invasive cancer, limitations associated with screening manifest as potential harms affecting individuals who are free of invasive disease. Disease-free and benign tumour-bearing individuals who are subjected to diagnostic work-up following a screening examination constitute a population of cases referred to as false positives (FPs). This article discusses factors contributing to the FP rate in mammography and extends the discussion to an assessment of the consequences associated with FP reporting. We conclude that the mammography FP rate in North America is in excess based upon the observation of overtreatment of in situ lesions and the disproportionate distribution of detriment and benefit among the population of individuals recalled for diagnostic work-up subsequent to screening. To address the excessive incidence of FPs in mammography, we investigate solutions that may be employed to remediate the current status of the FP rate. Subsequently, it can be suggested that improvements in the breast-screening protocol, medical litigation risk, image interpretation software and the implementation of image acquisition modalities that overcome superimposition effects are promising solutions.

Learning from errors in radiology: a comprehensive review

An important goal of error analysis is to create processes aimed at reducing or preventing the occurrence of errors and minimizing the degree of harm. The discovery of any errors presents an opportunity to study the types that occur and to examine their sources and develop measures to prevent them from recurring. The development of an effective system for detecting and appropriately managing errors is essential to substantially attenuate their consequences. At this stage, the error analysis process identifies contributing factors to enable the implementation of concrete steps to prevent such errors from occurring in the future. Active and comprehensive management of errors and adverse events requires ongoing surveillance processes. Educational programs, morbidity and mortality meetings, and a comprehensive and respected root cause analysis process are also essential components of this comprehensive approach. To reduce the incidence of errors, health care providers must identify their causes, devise solutions, and measure the success of improvement efforts. Moreover, accurate measurements of the incidence of error, based on clear and consistent definitions, are essential prerequisites for effective action.

Malpractice claims following screening mammography in The Netherlands

Although malpractice lawsuits are frequently related to a delayed breast cancer diagnosis in symptomatic patients, information on claims at European screening mammography programs is lacking. We determined the type and frequency of malpractice claims at a Dutch breast cancer screening region. We included all 85,274 women (351,009 screens) who underwent biennial screening mammography at a southern breast screening region in The Netherlands between 1997 and 2009. Two screening radiologists reviewed the screening mammograms of all screen detected cancers and interval cancers and determined whether the cancer had been missed at the previous screen or at the latest screen, respectively. We analyzed all correspondence between the screening organization, clinicians and screened women, and collected complaints and claims until September 2011. At review, 20.9% (308/1,475) of screen detected cancers and 24.3% (163/670) of interval cancers were considered to be missed at a previous screen. A total of 19 women (of which 2, 6 and 11 women had been screened between 1997 and 2001 (102,439 screens), 2001 and 2005 (114,740 screens) and 2005 and 2009 (133,830 screens), respectively) had contacted the screening organization for additional information about their screen detected cancer or interval cancer, but filed no claim. Three other women directly initiated an insurance claim for financial compensation of their interval cancer without previously having contacted the screening organization. We conclude that screening-related claims were rarely encountered, although many screen detected cancers and interval cancers had been missed at a previous screen. A small but increasing proportion of women sought additional information about their breast cancer from the screening organization.

Responsabilidade civil do radiologista no diagnóstico do câncer de mama através do exame de mamografia

O objetivo deste trabalho foi analisar a responsabilidade civil por erro médico no que tange, especificamente, à conduta do radiologista no diagnóstico do câncer através do exame mamográfico. Foram analisadas, para exemplificar, decisões judiciais com o objetivo de mostrar o entendimento dos tribunais nacionais, dentre eles, o Supremo Tribunal Federal, a quem compete revisar, em grau de recurso, as decisões judiciais que afrontam a Constituição Federal, bem como o Superior Tribunal de Justiça, que tem a competência de julgar em grau de recurso as decisões violadoras das leis federais. O material utilizado demonstra a visão dos tribunais acerca do tema objeto desta pesquisa, revelando as consequências do erro do médico radiologista e dos serviços de radiologia no âmbito do direito civil, que possui a indenização monetária como consequência da existência de responsabilidade civil. Ou seja, o dever de indenizar decorre da constatação da existência da responsabilidade civil. Assim, afastada a responsabilidade civil, fica afastado o dever de indenizar. Indenização não se confunde com a responsabilidade civil, esta é fundamento daquela.

Multiple clinical practice guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening: perceptions of US primary care physicians

BACKGROUND

Multiple clinical practice guidelines exist for breast and cervical cancer screening, and differ in aggressiveness with respect to the recommended frequency and target populations for screening.

OBJECTIVES

To determine (1) US primary care physicians' (PCPs) perceptions of the influence of different clinical practice guidelines; (2) the relationship between the number, aggressiveness, and agreement of influential guidelines and the aggressiveness of physicians' screening recommendations; and (3) factors associated with guideline perceptions.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A nationally representative sample of 1212 PCPs was surveyed in 2006-2007. Cross-sectional analyses examined physicians' perceptions of the influence of different breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines, the relationship of guideline perceptions to screening recommendations in response to hypothetical vignettes, and the predictors of guideline perceptions.

RESULTS

American Cancer Society and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines were perceived as more influential than other guidelines. Most physicians (62%) valued multiple guidelines, and conflicting and aggressive rather than conservative guideline combinations. The number, aggressiveness, and agreement of influential guidelines were associated with the aggressiveness of screening recommendations (P < 0.01)-which was highest for physicians valuing multiple-aggressive, lowest for physicians valuing multiple-conservative, and intermediate for physicians valuing multiple-conflicting, single, and no guidelines. Obstetrician/gynecologists specialty predicted valuation of aggressive guidelines (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs' perceptions of cancer screening guidelines vary, relate to screening recommendations in logically-consistent ways, and are predicted by specialty and other factors. The number, aggressiveness, and agreement of valued guidelines are associated with screening recommendations, suggesting that guideline multiplicity is an important problem in clinical decision-making.

Disclosing harmful mammography errors to patients

PURPOSE

To assess radiologists' attitudes about disclosing errors to patients by using a survey with a vignette involving an error interpreting a patient's mammogram, leading to a delayed cancer diagnosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted an institutional review board-approved survey of 364 radiologists at seven geographically distinct Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium sites that interpreted mammograms from 2005 to 2006. Radiologists received a vignette in which comparison screening mammograms were placed in the wrong order, leading a radiologist to conclude calcifications were decreasing in number when they were actually increasing, delaying a cancer diagnosis. Radiologists were asked (a) how likely they would be to disclose this error, (b) what information they would share, and (c) their malpractice attitudes and experiences.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-three (67%) of 364 radiologists responded to the disclosure vignette questions. Radiologists' responses to whether they would disclose the error included "definitely not" (9%), "only if asked by the patient" (51%), "probably" (26%), and "definitely" (14%). Regarding information they would disclose, 24% would "not say anything further to the patient," 31% would tell the patient that "the calcifications are larger and are now suspicious for cancer," 30% would state "the calcifications may have increased on your last mammogram, but their appearance was not as worrisome as it is now," and 15% would tell the patient "an error occurred during the interpretation of your last mammogram, and the calcifications had actually increased in number, not decreased." Radiologists' malpractice experiences were not consistently associated with their disclosure responses.

CONCLUSION

Many radiologists report reluctance to disclose a hypothetical mammography error that delayed a cancer diagnosis. Strategies should be developed to increase radiologists' comfort communicating with patients.

What is the point: will screening mammography save my life?

BACKGROUND

We analyzed the claim "mammography saves lives" by calculating the life-saving absolute benefit of screening mammography in reducing breast cancer mortality in women ages 40 to 65.

METHODS

To calculate the absolute benefit, we first estimated the screen-free absolute death risk from breast cancer by adjusting the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program 15-year cumulative breast cancer mortality to account for the separate effects of screening mammography and improved therapy. We calculated the absolute risk reduction (reduction in absolute death risk), the number needed to screen assuming repeated screening, and the survival percentages without and with screening. We varied the relative risk reduction from 10%-30% based on the randomized trials of screening mammography. We developed additional variations of the absolute risk reduction for a screening intervention, including the average benefit of a single screen, as well as the life-saving proportion among patients with earlier cancer detection.

RESULTS

Because the screen-free absolute death risk is approximately 1% overall but rises with age, the relative risk reduction from repeated screening mammography is about 100 times the absolute risk reduction between the starting ages of 50 and 60. Assuming a base case 20% relative risk reduction, repeated screening starting at age 50 saves about 1.8 (overall range, 0.9-2.7) lives over 15 years for every 1000 women screened. The number needed to screen repeatedly is 1000/1.8, or 570. The survival percentage is 99.12% without and 99.29% with screening. The average benefit of a single screening mammogram is 0.034%, or 2970 women must be screened once to save one life. Mammography saves 4.3% of screen-detectable cancer patients' lives starting at age 50. This means 23 cancers must be found starting at age 50, or 27 cancers at age 40 and 21 cancers at age 65, to save one life.

CONCLUSION

The life-saving absolute benefit of screening mammography increases with age as the absolute death risk increases. The number of events needed to save one life varies depending on the prospective screening subset or reference class. Less than 5% of women with screen-detectable cancers have their lives saved.

Predictors of radiologists' perceived risk of malpractice lawsuits in breast imaging

OBJECTIVE

The shortage of radiologists in breast imaging may be related to heightened malpractice lawsuit concerns. Our objective was to examine radiologists' reported experiences and perceptions of future lawsuit risk and explore personal and professional factors that may be associated with elevated perceptions of risk.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Radiologists who routinely interpret mammography examinations in diverse regions of the United States (Washington, Colorado, and New Hampshire) completed a mailed survey in 2002 and 2006, including questions on demographics, practice characteristics, and medicolegal experience and perceptions as well as a validated scale measuring reactions to uncertainty in clinical situations. A survey assessing the radiologists' work facilities was also completed in 2002.

RESULTS

Participation by eligible radiologists was 77% (139 of 181) in 2002 and 71% (84 of 118) in 2006. The percentage of radiologists reporting malpractice claims related to mammography in the previous 5 years was 8% on the 2002 survey and 10% on the 2006 survey. Radiologists' mean estimate of the probability of being sued for malpractice in the next 5 years (41% in 2002 and 35% in 2006) was markedly higher than the actual reported risk. Radiologists' age, sex, clinical experience, and workload were not associated with a higher perceived risk of being sued. Radiologists who reported higher perceived risk of lawsuits were more likely to have experienced a prior malpractice claim, to report knowing colleagues with prior lawsuits, and to score higher on a scale measuring anxiety caused by uncertainty in clinical situations. Radiologists working at facilities that did not use double reading reported higher perceived risk, but the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Radiologists working in breast imaging substantially overestimate their risk of a future malpractice lawsuit. Radiologists with higher risk perceptions show more negative reactions to uncertainty in a clinical setting. Understanding that their actual risk of malpractice lawsuits may be substantially lower than anticipated may help reduce radiologists' fears and alleviate the manpower shortage in mammography. Programs to address the shortage of breast imagers could be targeted toward radiologists with heightened malpractice lawsuit concerns.

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.

Malpractice litigation in patients in relation to delivery of breast care in the NHS

Malpractice litigation involving patients with carcinoma of the breast has been evaluated in United States of America (USA). The extent of litigation in breast cancer has not been published in UK and malpractice claims in relation to overall breast care have not been published before. We sought to study and evaluate all the litigation claims in relation to breast care with the National Health Service Litigation Authority (NHSLA) from May 1995 to September 2005. We also studied changes in litigation claims and outcomes in incidents reported before and after January 1, 2000.

Presumed prevalence analysis on suspected and highly suspected breast cancer lesions in São Paulo using BIRADS criteria

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Breast cancer screening programs are critical for early detection of breast cancer. Early detection is essential for diagnosing, treating and possibly curing breast cancer. Since there are no data on the incidence of breast cancer, nationally or regionally in Brazil, our aim was to assess women by means of mammography, to determine the prevalence of this disease.

DESIGN AND SETTING

The study protocol was designed in collaboration between the Department of Diagnostic Imaging (DDI), Institute of Diagnostic Imaging (IDI) and São Paulo Municipal Health Program.

METHODS

A total of 139,945 Brazilian women were assessed by means of mammography between April 2002 and September 2004. Using the American College of Radiology (ACR) criteria (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BIRADS), the prevalence of suspected and highly suspected breast lesions were determined.

RESULTS

The prevalence of suspected (BIRADS 4) and highly suspected (BIRADS 5) lesions increased with age, especially after the fourth decade. Accordingly, BIRADS 4 and BIRADS 5 lesions were more prevalent in the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh decades.

CONCLUSION

The presumed prevalence of suspected and highly suspected breast cancer lesions in the population of São Paulo was 0.6% and it is similar to the prevalence of breast cancer observed in other populations.

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.

Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists' medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography

PURPOSE

To assess the relationship between radiologists' perception of and experience with medical malpractice and their patient-recall rates in actual community-based clinical settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All study activities were approved by the institutional review boards of the involved institutions, and patient and radiologist informed consent was obtained where necessary. This study was performed in three regions of the United States (Washington, Colorado, and New Hampshire). Radiologists who routinely interpret mammograms completed a mailed survey that included questions on demographic data, practice environment, and medical malpractice. Survey responses were linked to interpretive performance for all screening mammography examinations performed between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2001. The odds of recall were modeled by using logistic regression analysis based on generalized estimating equations that adjust for study region.

RESULTS

Of 181 eligible radiologists, 139 (76.8%) returned the survey with full consent. The analysis included 124 radiologists who had interpreted a total of 557 143 screening mammograms. Approximately half (64 of 122 [52.4%]) of the radiologists reported a prior malpractice claim, with 18 (14.8%) reporting mammography-related claims. The majority (n = 51 [81.0%]) of the 63 radiologists who responded to a question regarding the degree of stress caused by a medical malpractice claim described the experience as very or extremely stressful. More than three of every four radiologists (ie, 94 [76.4%] of 123) expressed concern about the impact medical malpractice has on mammography practice, with over half (72 [58.5%] of 123) indicating that their concern moderately to greatly increased the number of their recommendations for breast biopsies. Radiologists' estimates of their future malpractice risk were substantially higher than the actual historical risk. Almost one of every three radiologists (43 of 122 [35.3%]) had considered withdrawing from mammogram interpretation because of malpractice concerns. No significant association was found between recall rates and radiologists' experiences or perceptions of medical malpractice.

CONCLUSION

U.S. radiologists are extremely concerned about medical malpractice and report that this concern affects their recall rates and biopsy recommendations. However, medical malpractice experience and concerns were not associated with recall or false-positive rates. Heightened concern of almost all radiologists may be a key reason that recall rates are higher in the United States than in other countries, but this hypothesis requires further study.