Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:33:30.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Medical Malpractice Implications of PSA Testing for Early Detection of Prostate Cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Mary McNaughton Collins ,
Floyd J. Fowler Jr. ,
Richard G. Roberts ,
Joseph E. Oesterling ,
George J. Annas  and
Michael J. Barry
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Prostate cancer has become a major health concern of male Americans. It is now the most common nondermatologic cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death among men. The incidence of detected prostate cancer rose rapidly in recent years, partly because of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing; it is only now tapering off. Screening for prostate cancer with PSA is widespread in the United States, yet controversial: the American Urological Association recommends PSA screening and the American Cancer Society recommends offering screening; however, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the American College of Physicians (ACP) recommend against routine screening; and the American Academy of Family Physicians believes that the decision to screen should be left to the patient.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , Winter 1997 , pp. 234 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Pellegrino, E.D., Editorial, “Can the Doctor's Burden Be Shifted to the Patient?,” Pharos, Spring (1993): At 34.Google Scholar
See Parker, S.L., “Cancer Statistics, 1996,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 46 (1996): 5–27.Google Scholar
See Jacobsen, S.J., “Incidence of Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in the Eras Before and After Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing,” JAMA, 274 (1995): 1445–49; and Potosky, A.L., “The Role of Increasing Detection in the Rising Incidence of Prostate Cancer,” JAMA, 273 (1995): 548–52.Google Scholar
See Merrill, R.M., “Changing Trends in Prostate Cancer Incidence Rates,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 88 (1996): 1683–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Prostate Health Council, Prostate Cancer: What Every Man Over 40 Should Know (Baltimore: Prostate Health Council, 1994).Google Scholar
See von Eschenbach, A., “American Cancer Society Guideline for the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: Update 1997,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 47 (1997): 261–64.Google Scholar
See U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, “Screening for Prostate Cancer,” in Guide to Clinical Preventive Services (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 2nd ed., 1996): 119–34; Coley, C.M., “Early Detection of Prostate Cancer. Part I: Prior Probability and Performance of Tests,” Annals of Internal Medicine, 126 (1997): 394–406; and Coley, C.M., “Early Detection of Prostate Cancer. Part II: Estimating the Risks, Benefits, and Costs,” Annals of Internal Medicine, 126 (1997): 468–79.Google Scholar
See American Academy of Family Physicians, Action Policy, Summary of Policy Recommendations for Periodic Health Examination (Kansas City: American Academy of Family Physicians, Nov. 1996, rev. July 1997).Google Scholar
See, for example, Gutheil, T.G., “Malpractice Prevention Through the Sharing of Uncertainty,” N. Engl. J. Med., 311 (1984): 49–51; and Kelley, J.J., Letter, “In Defense of Defensive Medicine,” Pharos, Spring (1995): 45–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Weiler, P., A Measure of Malpractice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993); Summerton, N., “Positive and Negative Factors in Defensive Medicine: A Questionnaire Study of General Practitioners,” British Medical Journal, 310 (1995): 27–29; Kapp, M.B., “Informed Consent to Defensive Medicine: Letting the Patient Decide,” Pharos, Spring (1993): 12–14; and Metzloff, T.B., “Defensive Medicine and the Use of Medical Technology: Physician Involvement in Medical Malpractice Litigation” (1994) (unpublished paper commissioned by the Office of Technology Assessment) (on file with author).Google Scholar
See Brennan, T.A., Just Doctoring: Medical Ethics in the Liberal State (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991>): At 135; There is simply no acceptable method for defining or measuring the extent and cost of defensive medicine, although the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment has suggested that the upper bound on the frequency of diagnostic defensive medicine is less than 8 percent of all diagnostic procedures. Because approximately one trillion dollars will be spent on health care in 1997, however, 8 percent is still a substantial amount. Office of Technology Assessment, Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice (Washington, D.C.: Office of Technology Assessment, 1994): At 3. Defensive medicine can also be divided into two types: Positive defensive acts done because of perceived malpractice risk, such as diagnosis tests; and negative defensive practices not performed because of perceived malpractice risk. See Rubin, R.J. Mendelson, D.N., Estimating the Costs of Defensive Medicine (Fairfax: Lewin-VHI, 1993). It has also been suggested that failure to follow up on abnormal test results may actually be a greater source of legal liability than not performing the tests in the first place. See generally, for example, Robertson, W.M., Medical Malpractice: A Preventive Approach (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1985); and Harris, J.E., “Defensive Medicine: It Costs, But Does It Work?,” JAMA, 257 (1987): 2801–02. All of this, of course, makes this an extremely perilous area to study.Google Scholar
See, for example, Reinhardt, U.E., “Reforming the Health Care System,” American Journal of Law & Medicine, XIX (1993): 21–36. This, of course, is the rationale for using financial incentives to affect physician behavior. See also Richard, E.P., “Do Physicians Really Care about Medical Malpractice Litigation?,” Preventive Law Reporter, Spring (1993): At 3 (stating “The self-serving nature of the defensive medicine argument is obvious when one realizes that third-party insurers pay for these tests. Unnecessary tests increase the profitability of the hospital or the independent lab.”).Google Scholar
See Klingman, D., “Measuring Defensive Medicine Using Clinical Scenario Surveys,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 21 (1996): 185–217; Bovbjerg, R.R., “Defensive Medicine and Tort Reform: New Evidence in an Old Bottle,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 21 (1996): 267–88; Glassman, P.A., “Physicians' Personal Malpractice Experiences Are Not Related to Defensive Clinical Practices,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 21 (1996): 219–38; Jacobson, P.D., “The Use of Low-Osmolar Contrast Agents: Technological Change and Defensive Medicine,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 21 (1996): 243–66; and see Voss, J.D., “Prostate Cancer, Screening, and Prostate-Specific Antigen: Promise or Peril?,” Journal of General Internal Medicine, 9 (1994): 468–74.Google Scholar
See, for example, Berlin, L., “Malpractice and Radiologists in Cook County, IL: Trends in 20 Years of Litigation,” American Journal of Radiology, 165 (1995): 781–88.Google Scholar
See, for example, Troxel, D.B., “Problem Areas in Pathology Practice: Uncovered by a Review of Malpractice Claims,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 18 (1994): 821–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, for example, Kern, K., “Medical Malpractice Involving Colon and Rectal Disease: A 20-Year Review of United States Civil Court Litigation,” Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, 36 (1993): 531–39; and Kern, K.A., “Medicolegal Analysis of the Delayed Diagnosis of Cancer in 338 Cases in the United States,” Archives of Surgery, 129 (1994): 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, for example, Heland, K.V., “Medicolegal Issues,” Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America, 21 (1994): 781–88; and Baldwin, L.M., “Defensive Medicine in Obstetrics,” JAMA, 274 (1995): 1606–10.Google Scholar
See Brennan, T.A., “Medical Malpractice Reform: The Current Proposals,” Journal of General Internal Medicine, 10 (1995): 211–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Physician Insurers Association of America Data Sharing Committee, Cumulative Reports Jan. 1, 1985–June 30, 1996 (Rockville: Physician Insurers Association of America, 1996).Google Scholar
See Annas, G.J., “Breast Cancer Screening in Older Women: Law and Patient Rights,” Journal of Gerontology, 47 (1992): 121–25.Google Scholar
See Reeves, J.D., “Legal Implications of Prostate Cancer: What You Should Know,” Virginia Medical Quarterly, 120 (1993): 77–79. Of course, the breach of duty must also cause harm to the patient.Google Scholar
See Annas, G.J., American Health Law (Boston: Little Brown, 1990): At 377–415; Annas, G.J., The Rights of Patients (Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press, 2nd ed., 1989): At 240; and see Kinney, E.D. Wilder, M.M., “Medical Standard Setting in the Current Malpractice Environment: Problems and Possibilities,” University of California at Davis Law Review, 22 (1989): 421–50.Google Scholar
See Meigs, J.B., “Interpreting Results of Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing for Early Detection of Prostate Cancer,” Journal of General Internal Medicine, 11 (1996): 505–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Barry, M.J., “A Nationwide Survey of Practicing Urologists: Current Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia and Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer,” Journal of Urology, 158 (1997): 488–92; Collins, M.M., “Diagnosis and Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Practice Patterns of Primary Care Physicians,” Journal of General Internal Medicine, 12 (1997): 224–29; and Fowler, F.J. Jr., “Early Detection Practice Patterns and Treatment Beliefs Among Primary Care Physicians about Prostate Cancer: Results of a National Survey of Physicians,” American Journal of Medicine, (1998) (in press) (on file with author).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, J.D. Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Diagnosis and Treatment (Rockville: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Clinical Practice Guideline No. 8, AHCPR Pub. No. 94-0582, 1994).Google ScholarPubMed
Personal communication with Maureen Mondor, Ricci, Barbara Kelly, Liz, ProMutual Group, Boston (July 1996–Aug. 1997) (on file with author); and personal communication with Priscilla Dasse, Volk, Lynn, Controlled Risk Insurance Company, Boston (July 1996–Aug. 1997) (on file with author).Google Scholar
See Rosner, B., Fundamentals of Biostatistics (Boston: PWS-Kent, 1990).Google Scholar
See Barry, M.J., “Should Medicare Provide Reimbursement for Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing for Early Detection of Prostate Cancer? Part I: Framing the Debate,” Urology, 46 (1995): 2–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See von Eschenbach, , supra note 6.Google Scholar
See Barry, M.J., “Epidemiology and Natural History of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia,” Urologic Clinics of North America, 17 (1990): 495–507.Google Scholar
See von Eschenbach, , supra note 6.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See Sershon, P.D., “Preoperative Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen: A Comparison Between Men with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia and Patients with Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer,” European Urology, 25 (1994): 281–87; and Oesterling, J.E., “PSA-Detected (Clinical Stage T1c or B0) Prostate Cancer: Pathologically Significant Tumors,” Urologic Clinics of North America, 20 (1993): 687–93.Google Scholar
See Mettlin, C., “The American Cancer Society National Prostate Cancer Detection Project. Findings on the Detection of Early Prostate Cancer in 2425 Men,” Cancer, 67 (1991): 2949–58; and Catalona, W.J., “Comparison of Digital Rectal Examination and Serum Prostate Specific Antigen in the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: Results of a Multicenter Clinical Trial of 6,630 Men,” Journal of Urology, 151 (1994): 1283–90.Google Scholar
See Edwards, P.J., “Screening, Ethics, and the Law: Ensure that Subjects Know What's Going On,” British Medical Journal, 305 (1992): 267–68. It should be emphasized that mere failure to offer prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is insufficient to win a malpractice suit, even if PSA is the standard of care. The patient must also prove that he has prostate cancer and his outcome would have been better had the PSA test been done, and that he would have consented to have the test.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Wasson, J.H., “A Structured Literature Review of Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer,” Archives of Family Medicine, 2 (1993): 487–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Bovbjerg, , supra note 13.Google Scholar
See Reintgen, D., “The Medical Legal Implications of Following Mammographic Breast Masses,” American Surgeon, 59 (1993): 99–105.Google Scholar
See Physician Insurers Association of America, Breast Cancer Study: June 1995 (Washington, D.C.: Physician Insurers Association of America, 1995).Google Scholar
See Records, S.F., News, “Female Breast Cancer is Most Prevalent Cause of Malpractice Claims,” Journal of the Oklahoma State Medical Association, 88 (1995): 311–12.Google Scholar
See Kern, (1994), supra note 16.Google Scholar
Hahm, D.L. Roberts, R.G., “PSA Screening for Asymptomatic Prostate Cancer: Truth in Advertising,” Journal of Family Practice, 37 (1993): 432–36.Google Scholar
See Annas, supra note 20; and Truman v. Thomas, 27 Cal. 3d 285, 165 Cal. Rptr. 308, 611 P.2d 902 (1980) (citing informed refusal required for recommended Papanicolaou smear).Google Scholar
See Woolf, S.H., “Screening for Prostate Cancer with Prostate Specific Antigen: An Examination of the Evidence,” N. Engl. J. Med., 333 (1995): 1401–05; Flood, A.B., “The Importance of Patient Preference in the Decision to Screen for Prostate Cancer,” Journal of General Internal Medicine, 11 (1996): 342–49; and Wolf, A.M.D., “The Impact of Informed Consent on Patient Interest in Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening,” Archives of Internal Medicine, 156 (1996): 1333–36. One of the major challenges for medicine in the coming decades is to develop ways to ensure informed consent and informed refusal for the emerging genetic tests done not to determine a disease state, but to determine a “predisposition” to a disease. Our experience with PSA testing may provide guidance in this area as well. See Elias, S. Annas, G.J., “Generic Consent for Genetic Screening,” N. Engl. J. Med., 330 (1994): 1611–13.Google Scholar
See Gutheil, , supra note 9, at 51.Google Scholar