Advertisement

I rischi di una diagnostica senza limiti

  • Marco Bobbio

Riassunto

Un’infermiera di 52 anni, in sovrappeso e in trattamento antipertensivo, si presenta dal proprio medico lamentando un dolore al torace, persistente da due giorni, non indotto dallo sforzo, che si accentua con profonde inspirazioni e sollevando il braccio destro. Il profilo lipidico e la proteina C reattiva ultrasensibile, che potrebbero aumentare la probabilità di origine coronarica di quel sintomo, sono entrambi normali. Sulla base di questi dati, il medico giudica il dolore atipico; vorrebbe rassicurare la paziente sull’origine non cardiaca del disturbo, ma preferisce prescriverle una TC coronarica per escludere con maggior precisione una malattia coronarica. È più tranquillo il medico, che demanda a un test diagnostico (e a chi lo interpreta) la responsabilità della diagnosi, ed è più serena la signora, che sarà certa di avere le coronarie a posto.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliografia

  1. 1.
    Becker MC, Galla JM, Nissen SE (2011) Left main trunk coronary artery dissection as a consequence of inaccurate coronary computed tomographic angiography. Arch Intern Med 171(7): 698–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Quadrino S (2011) Dove corre la medicina? Janus 36(3):34–37Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Welch HG, Black WC (2010) Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(9):605–613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gaglio M, Gallus G (1976) Prevenzione e predizione: realtà e miti. Sapere 9(794):28–32Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E (2010) Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 60(5):277–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doria-Rose VP, Szabo E (2010) Screening and prevention of lung cancer. In: Kernstine KH, Reckamp KL (eds) Lung cancer: a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and management. Demos Medical Publishing, New York, pp. 53–72Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stitik FP, Tockman MS (1978) Radiographic screening in the early detection of lung cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 16(3):347–366PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bach PB, Kelley MJ, Tate RC, McCrory DC (2003) Screening for lung cancer: a review of the current literature. Chest 123(1 Suppl):72S–82SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Lung cancer screening (http://www.uspreventiveservice staskforce.org/3rduspstf/lungcancer/lungcanrs.htm#recommendations)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The International Early Lung Cancer Action Program Investigators (2006) Survival of patients with stage I lung cancer detected on CT screening. N Engl J Med 355(17):1763–1771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bach PB, Jett JR, Pastorino U et al (2007) Computed tomography screening and lung cancer outcomes. JAMA 297(9):953–961PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Black WC, Baron JA (2007) CT screening for lung cancer: spiraling into confusion? JAMA 297(9):995–997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Naidich DP, Marshall CH, Gribbin C et al (1990). Low-dose CT of the lungs: preliminary observations. Radiology 175(3):729–731PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Lung Screening Trial Research Team (2011) Reduce lung-cancer mortality with lowdose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 365(5):395–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sox HC (2011) Better evidence about screening for lung cancer. N Engl J Med 365(5):455–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gruppo di lavoro dell’Osservatorio Nazionale Screening sullo screening per il carcinoma prostatico (2010) Documento di consenso sullo screening del cancro della prostata (aggiornamento novembre 2010) (http://www.osservatorionazionalescreening.it/content/gestione-dei-percorsidi-diagnosi-precoce-il-tumore-alla-prostata)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilbur J (2008) Prostate cancer screening: the continuing controversy. Am Fam Physician 78(12):1377–1384PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2008) Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 149(3):185–191Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Begg CB, Riedel ER, Bach PB et al (2002) Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med 346(15):1138–1144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barry MJ (2008) Screening for prostate cancer among men 75 years of age or older. N Engl J Med 359(24):2515–2516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd et al (2009) Mortality results from randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 360(13):1310–1319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al (2009) Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 360(13):1320–1328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Barry MJ (2009) Screening for prostate cancer — the controversy that refuses to die. N Engl J Med 360(13):1351–1354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2011) Screening for prostate cancer: recommendation statement (draft) October 7, 2011 (http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf12/prostate/ draftrecprostate.htm)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brett AS, Ablin RJ (2011) Prostate-cancer screening — what the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force left out. N Engl J Med 365(21):1949–1951PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McNaughton-Collins MF, Barry MJ (2011) One man at a time — resolving the PSA controversy. N Engl J Med 365(21):1951–1953PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schröder FH (2011) Stratifying risk — the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and prostatecancer screening. N Engl J Med 365(21):1953–1955PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pagliaro L, Bobbio M, Colli A (2011) La diagnosi in medicina. Raffaello Cortina Editore, MilanoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Bobbio
    • 1
  1. 1.SC CardiologiaAzienda Ospedaliera «S. Croce e Carle»CuneoItalia

Personalised recommendations