Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Malpractice Trends Involving Active Surveillance Across Cancers.
Chang, Samuel; Daskivich, Timothy J; Vasquez, Missael; Sacks, Wendy L; Zumsteg, Zachary S; Ho, Allen S.
Afiliação
  • Chang S; Athene Law LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Daskivich TJ; Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Vasquez M; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Sacks WL; Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Zumsteg ZS; Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Ho AS; Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
Ann Surg ; 279(4): 679-683, 2024 Apr 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37747179
OBJECTIVE: To characterize malpractice trends related to active surveillance (AS) as a treatment strategy across cancers. BACKGROUND: Active surveillance is increasingly considered a viable management strategy for low-risk cancers. Since a subset of AS cases will progress, metastasize, or exhibit cancer-related mortality, a significant barrier to implementation is the perceived risk of litigation from missing the window for cure. Data on malpractice trends across cancers are lacking. METHODS: Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases were searched from 1990 to 2022 for malpractice cases involving active surveillance in conjunction with thyroid cancer, prostate cancer, kidney cancer, breast cancer, or lymphoma. Queries included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions. Data were compiled on legal allegations, procedures performed, and verdicts or settlements rendered. RESULTS: Five prostate cancer cases were identified that pertained to active surveillance. Two cases involved alleged deliberate indifference from AS as a management strategy but were ruled as following the appropriate standard of care. In contrast, 3 cases involved alleged physician negligence for not explicitly recommending AS as a treatment option after complications from surgery occurred. All cases showed documented informed consent for AS, leading to defense verdicts in favor of the physicians. No cases of AS-related malpractice were identified for other cancer types. CONCLUSIONS: To date, no evidence of successful malpractice litigation for active surveillance in cancer has been identified. Given the legal precedent detailed in the identified cases and increasing support across national guidelines, active surveillance represents a sound management option in appropriate low-risk cancers, with no increased risk of medicolegal exposure.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Médicos / Imperícia / Neoplasias Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Screening_studies Limite: Humans / Male País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Ann Surg Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Médicos / Imperícia / Neoplasias Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Screening_studies Limite: Humans / Male País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Ann Surg Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article