Scholarlink

Background <p>With the advancement of MR-based imaging, prostate cancer ablative therapies have seen increased interest to reduce complications of prostate cancer treatment. Although less invasive, they do carry procedural risks, including rectal injury. To date, the medicolegal aspects of ablative therapy remain underexplored. In this study, we aim to analyze malpractice lawsuits related to prostate cancer ablative therapies using a national legal database.</p> Methods <p>In this retrospective study, we utilized the LexisNexis Database to analyze ablative therapy malpractice lawsuits between 1970 and 2024. We searched for keywords “ablative therapy” “focal therapy” “high-intensity focused ultrasound” “HIFU” “cryotherapy” “cryoablation” “laser” “irreversible electroporation” and “IRE” We excluded cases that did not involve ablative treatment of prostate cancer. We then reviewed cases for treatment method, allegation, claimed liabilities, verdict, and plaintiff award.</p> Results <p>We identified 180 lawsuits using the keywords provided, and 5 cases met inclusion criteria. All five lawsuits involved cryoablation for prostate cancer. The most common precipitating injury was rectal injury (3, 60%). Allegations included negligence (2, 25%), deviation from the standard of care (2, 25%), deliberate indifference (2, 25%), and failure to consent (2, 25%). Verdicts were predominantly favorable to defendants (4, 80%), and one case (20%) resulted in an unknown outcome.</p> Conclusions <p>Ablative therapy had a limited number of lawsuits, with outcomes favorable to surgeons and minimal financial payouts. As ablative therapy continues to gain popularity, urologists must practice proper surgical techniques, conduct thorough informed consent, and exercise excellent patient–provider communication to help minimize the occurrence and impact of litigations involving ablative therapy. These findings may help guide future patient risk counseling and support adjustments in malpractice insurance policies as the use of ablative therapies expands, while also informing physicians and hospital systems considering their adoption or expansion.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Medicolegal landscape of prostate cancer ablative therapy: a national legal database analysis of malpractice claims (1970–2024)

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月9日

查看全文
  • Boyuan Xiao,
  • Zhiyu Qian,
  • Andrea Piccolini,
  • Filippo Dagnino,
  • Stephan M. Korn,
  • Hanna Zurl,
  • Klara K. Pohl,
  • Daniel R. Stelzl,
  • Caroline M. Moore,
  • Daniel Wollin,
  • Quoc-Dien Trinh,
  • Alexander P. Cole

摘要

Background

With the advancement of MR-based imaging, prostate cancer ablative therapies have seen increased interest to reduce complications of prostate cancer treatment. Although less invasive, they do carry procedural risks, including rectal injury. To date, the medicolegal aspects of ablative therapy remain underexplored. In this study, we aim to analyze malpractice lawsuits related to prostate cancer ablative therapies using a national legal database.

Methods

In this retrospective study, we utilized the LexisNexis Database to analyze ablative therapy malpractice lawsuits between 1970 and 2024. We searched for keywords “ablative therapy” “focal therapy” “high-intensity focused ultrasound” “HIFU” “cryotherapy” “cryoablation” “laser” “irreversible electroporation” and “IRE” We excluded cases that did not involve ablative treatment of prostate cancer. We then reviewed cases for treatment method, allegation, claimed liabilities, verdict, and plaintiff award.

Results

We identified 180 lawsuits using the keywords provided, and 5 cases met inclusion criteria. All five lawsuits involved cryoablation for prostate cancer. The most common precipitating injury was rectal injury (3, 60%). Allegations included negligence (2, 25%), deviation from the standard of care (2, 25%), deliberate indifference (2, 25%), and failure to consent (2, 25%). Verdicts were predominantly favorable to defendants (4, 80%), and one case (20%) resulted in an unknown outcome.

Conclusions

Ablative therapy had a limited number of lawsuits, with outcomes favorable to surgeons and minimal financial payouts. As ablative therapy continues to gain popularity, urologists must practice proper surgical techniques, conduct thorough informed consent, and exercise excellent patient–provider communication to help minimize the occurrence and impact of litigations involving ablative therapy. These findings may help guide future patient risk counseling and support adjustments in malpractice insurance policies as the use of ablative therapies expands, while also informing physicians and hospital systems considering their adoption or expansion.