Abstract
Breast cancer is the most common diagnosis in medical malpractice claims in the United States. This chapter analyzes 100 consecutive breast cancer claims from The Doctors Company, a large national medical malpractice insurer. Factors that contribute to this high claims frequency include patient discovery of the breast mass, delay in diagnosis, mammography communication errors, patient age, tumor size, and tumor stage. The potential for computer-aided detection to reduce mammography interpretation errors is discussed. Finally, pathology claims involving breast biopsy and fine needle aspiration are analyzed and strategies are presented to minimize diagnostic error.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Anderson R. Breast cancer lawsuits. The Doctors Advocate 2001; Second Quarter:1.
Anderson R. Breast cancer lawsuit outcomes. The Doctors Advocate 2002; First Quarter:1.
Anderson R. Breast cancer lawsuit outcomes, part II. The Doctors Advocate 2002; Second Quarter:1.
Anderson R. Breast cancer study conclusions. The Doctors Advocate 2002; Third Quarter:1.
The Doctors Company data on file. Napa, CA 2002.
Kerlkowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, et al. Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. JAMA 1996;276(1):39–43.
Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med 1996;156(2):209–213.
Troxel DB. Breast biopsy and fine needle aspiration. The Doctors Advocate 2002; Third Quarter:2–10.
Troxel DB. Diagnostic errors in surgical pathology uncovered by a review of malpractice claims. Int J Surg Pathol 2000;8:335–337.
Troxel DB. Malpractice claims involving breast pathology. Pathol Case Reviews 1999; 4:224–228.
Layfield LJ, Mooney EE, Glasgow B, et al. What constitutes an adequate smear in fine-needle aspiration cytology of the breast? Cancer (Cancer Cytopathology) 1997;81:16–21.
Boerner S, Sneige N. Specimen adequacy and false negative diagnosis rate in fine-needle aspirates of palpable breast masses. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathology) 1998; 84:344–348.
Abele J, Stanley MW, Miller TR, et al. What constitutes an adequate smear in fine needle aspiration cytology of the breast? Cancer (Cancer Cytopathology) 1998;84:57–61.
Jacobs T, Pliss N, Kouria G, et al. Carcinomas in situ of the breast with indeterminate features. Am J Surg Pathol 2001;25:229–236.
Maluf H, Swanson P, Koerner C. Solid low-grade in situ carcinoma of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol 2001;25:237–244.
Schnitt S, Connolly L, Tavassoli F, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol 1992;16:1133–1143.
Palazzo J, Hyslop BS. Hyperplastic ductal and lobular lesions and carcinomas in situ of the breast: reproducibility of current diagnostic criteria among community-and academic-based pathologists. Breast J 1998; 4:230–237.
Wells W, Carney P, Eliassen M, Grove M, Tosteson A. Pathololgists agreement with experts and reproducibility of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ classification schemes. Am J Surg Pathol 2000;24:651–659.
Hoda S, Rosen P. Practical considertions in the pathologic diagnosis of needle core biopsies of breast. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;118:101–108.
Jacobs T, Connolly J, Schnitt S. Nonmalignant lesions in breast core needle biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol 2002;26(9):1095–1010.
Jackman R, Nowels K, Shepard M, et al. Stereotaxic large-core needle biopsy of 450 nonpalpable breast lesions with surgical correlation in lesions with cancer or atypical hyperplasia. Radiology 1994;193:91–95.
Renshaw A, Cartagena N, Schenkman R, et al. Atypical duct hyperplasia in breast core needle biopsies. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;116:92–96.
Antley C, Mooney E, Layfield L. A comparison of accuracy rates between open biopsy, cutting-needle biopsy, and fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the breast: a 3-year experience. Breast J 1998;4:3–8.
Burhenne LJW, Wood SA, D’Orsi CJ, et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 2000; 215:554–562.
Chidley E. Assessing new mammography technologies. Radiology Today 2001;24.
Anderson R. Getting sued for breast cancer. The Doctors Advocate 2001; Third Quarter:1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Anderson, R.E., Troxel, D.B. (2005). Breast Cancer Litigation. In: Anderson, R.E. (eds) Medical Malpractice. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59259-845-8_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59259-845-8_12
Publisher Name: Humana Press
Print ISBN: 978-1-58829-389-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-59259-845-8
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)