Medizinische Universität Graz Austria/Österreich - Forschungsportal - Medical University of Graz

Direkt zur Navigaton springen.
Direkt zum Inhalt springen.

Navigation/Suche

Gewählte Publikation:

SHR Neuro Krebs Kardio Lipid Stoffw Microb

Xiao, B; Qian, Z; Piccolini, A; Dagnino, F; Korn, SM; Zurl, H; Pohl, KK; Stelzl, DR; Moore, CM; Wollin, D; Trinh, QD; Cole, AP.
Medicolegal landscape of prostate cancer ablative therapy: a national legal database analysis of malpractice claims (1970-2024).
Int Urol Nephrol. 2025; Doi: 10.1007/s11255-025-04766-x
Web of Science PubMed FullText FullText_MUG

Co-Autor*innen der Med Uni Graz: Pohl Klara Konstanze; Zurl Hanna
Altmetrics:
Dimensions Citations:
Plum Analytics:
Scite (citation analytics):
Abstract:: 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.
Find related publications in this database (Keywords): Ablative therapy; Legal; LexisNexis; Malpractice; Prostate cancer