Download PDF
Semin intervent Radiol 2001; 18(4): 415-424
DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-19103
Copyright © 2001 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

Interventional Radiology and the Law: Breast Procedures

Steven D. Frankel1 , R. James Brenner2
  • 1Tower Imaging Women's Center, Beverly Hills, California
  • 2Joyce Eisenberg Keefer Breast Center, John Wayne Cancer Center, Santa Monica, California
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
18 December 2001 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Given the high legal exposure for radiologists performing interventional procedures as well as interpreting breast-imaging studies, the interventional breast radiologist needs to understand the ramifications and consequences of such a practice. In this article, the medicolegal aspects of image-guided interventional procedures of the breast are summarized. The particularly unique features of separate procedures are discussed together with the general concepts of informed consent and negligence.

KEYWORD

Negligence - consent - procedure performance

REFERENCES

  • 1 Physicians Insurers Association of America: The Breast Cancer Study. Washington, DC: Physicians Insurers Association of America; 1995
  • 2 Jacobsen P D. Medical malpractice and the tort system.  JAMA . 1989;  262 3320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Brenner R J. Mammography and malpractice litigation: current status, lessons, and admonitions.  AJR Am J Roentgenol . 1993;  161 931-935
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Elmore J G, Wells C K, Lee C H. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms.  N Engl J Med . 1994;  331 1493-1499
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Tabar L, Duffy S W, Vitak B. The natural history of breast cancer: what have we learned from screening?.  Cancer . 1999;  86 449-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sox H C. Benefit and harm associated with screening for breast cancer.  N Engl J Med . 1998;  338 1145-1146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chu K C, Tarone R E, Kessler L G. Recent trends in U.S  breast cancer incidence, survival and mortality rates. J Natl Cancer Inst . 1996;  88 1571-1579
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Berlin L. Malpractice and radiologists, update 1986; an 11.5-year perspective.  AJR Am J Roentgenol . 1986;  147 1291-1298
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Spring D B, Tennenhouse D J. Radiology malpractice lawsuits: California jury verdicts.  Radiology . 1986;  159 811-814
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 VanSonnenberg E, Barton J AB, Wittich G R. Radiology and the law, with an emphasis on interventional radiology.  Radiology . 1993;  187 297-303
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Brenner R J. Interventional procedures of the breast: medical legal considerations.  Radiology . 1995;  195 611-615
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Brenner R J. Medicolegal aspects of interventional breast procedures. In: Dershaw DD, ed. Interventional Breast Procedures New York: Churchill-Livingston 1995: 167-174
    Google Scholar
  • 13 . Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992.  Pub L No. 102-539  
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Brenner R J. Breast cancer and malpractice: A guide to the physician. In: Brenner RJ, ed. Seminars in Breast Disease Philadelphia: WB Saunders 1998: 3-14
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Brenner R J. Lesions entirely removed during stereotactic biopsy: Preoperative localization on the basis of mammographic landmarks and feasibility of freehand technique-initial experience.  Radiology . 2000;  214 585-590
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Reynolds H E, Jackson V P, Musick B S. A survey of interventional mammography practices.  Radiology . 1993;  187 71-73
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Physicians Insurers Association of America: The Breast Cancer Study. Lawrencville, NJ: Physicians Insurers Association of America; 1990
  • 18 Brenner R J. Medicolegal aspects of breast imaging.  Radiol Clin North Am . 1992;  30 277-286
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Meyer J E, Sonnenfeld M R, Greenes R A. Cancellation of preoperative breast localization procedures: analysis of 53 cases.  Radiology . 1988;  169 629-636
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lee C H, Egglin T K, Philpotts L. Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic core needle biopsy: analysis by means of mammographic findings.  Radiology . 1997;  202 849-854
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Dershaw D D, Fleishman R C, Liberman L. Use of digital mammography in localization procedures.  AJR Am J Roentgenol . 1993;  161 559-562
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Melott I HK, Berg W A. Core needle breast biopsy in patients undergoing anticoagulation therapy: preliminary results.  AJR Am J Roentgenol . 2000;  174 245-249
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lieberman L. Stereotaxis biopsy technique. In: Dershaw DD, ed. Interventional Breast Procedures New York: Churchill-Livingston 1996: 107-127
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Elvecrog E L, Lechner M C, Nelson M T. Nonpalpable breast lesions: correlation of stereotaxic large-core needle biopsy and surgical biopsy results.  Radiology . 1993;  188 453-455
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Parker S H, Lovin J D, Jobe W E. Stereotactic breast biopsy with a biopsy gun.  Radiology . 1990;  176 731-747
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Reuter S R. An overview of informed consent for radiologists.  AJR Am J Roentgenol . 1987;  148 219-227
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Brenner R J, Bassett L W, Dershaw D D. Percutaneous core biopsy of the breast: a multisite prospective trial.  Radiology . 1994;  193 295
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Homer M J, Smith T J, Safaii H. Prebiopsy needle localization: methods, problems, and expected results.  Radiol Clin North Am . 1992;  30 139-154
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Adamson T E, Tschann J M, Guillian D S. Claims, a complex relationship.  West J Med . 1989;  150 356-360
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Brenner R J. Medicolegal aspects of breast imaging: variable standards of care relating to different types of practice.  AJR Am J Roentgenol . 1991;  156 719-723
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Monsees B, Destouet J M, Evens R G. The self-referred mammography patient: a new responsibility for radiologists.  Radiology . 1988;  166 69-71
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Brenner R J. Breast cancer evaluation: medical-legal and risk management considerations for the clinician.  Cancer . 1994;  74(Suppl) 486-491
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Domenici P V, Koop C E. Sue the doctor?. There's a better way. The New York Times 1991 June 6: A19,A25
    Google Scholar
      >