Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

Does lead-time bias have a place in court?

Dr. Saurabh Jha
Physician
January 3, 2017
Share
Tweet
Share

In 2014, a jury in Massachusetts awarded $16.7 million in damages to the daughter of a Bostonian lady who died from lung cancer at 47 for a missed cancer on a chest X-ray. The verdict reminds me of the words of John Bradford, a heretic who was burned at the stake: “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” Many radiologists will sympathize with both the patient who died prematurely and the radiologist who missed a 15-mm nodule on her chest X-ray when she presented with a cough to the emergency department a few months earlier.

The damages are instructive of the tension between President Obama’s health care law’s push for both resource stewardship and patient-centeredness and between missed diagnosis and waste. But the verdict speaks of the ineffectualness of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in court. If EBM is a science, then this science is least helpful when most needed, like when trying to influence public opinion, for example.

EBM tells us that had the patient’s cancer been detected thirteen months before it was, it would have made little difference to her survival, statistically speaking. Researchers from Mayo Clinic examining the impact of frequent chest X-rays in screening for lung cancer in a significant number of smokers found that the intensively screened group knew about their cancers earlier, had more cancers removed, but did not live longer as a result. This is known as “lead-time bias,” where early detection means more time knowing that one has the cancer, not more time one is alive. This means that had the nodule been seen on the patient’s initial chest X-ray she would probably — though not certainly — not have survived much beyond 47.

Lead-time bias is a fundamental concept in the statistics of screening. Physicians have it drilled in them. Recognition of this artifact curbs therapeutic and screening optimism. Why does lead-time bias not enter the courtroom? Why did no one successfully convince the jury that early detection would not have made a difference? Why is a fact, which can be demonstrated in 1000 people, not applicable to any one of the 1000 people in courts?

There are a few factors. The arrow of time flies in only one direction in a court: chest X-ray – presentation with cancer – death. Lead-time bias is an inverse problem, and inverse problems are difficult to think about, even for academics who spend time thinking about inverse problems. You’re turning the clock back. Death – presentation with cancer – chest X-ray. You’re asking, “Would early detection have made a difference?” You have to answer this question with the knowledge that the radiologist missed a finding. This tests our rationality. You’re saying to the plaintiff, “shit happens.” Shit is not supposed to happen in the United States, which has three times as many lawyers per capita as Britain. And Britain is where modern law was invented by William Blackstone.

Plaintiff’s lawyer need to entertain only a possibility that early detection could have cured the cancer to prevail in a suit. Though cure in this case was improbable, it was not impossible. Statistics predict. Statistics don’t prophesize. Evidence-based medicine speaks of the probable. The plural of anecdote is not evidence, but the singular of evidence can still be an anecdote, a possibility. And possibility beats probability in court. Or, as a defense attorney for medical malpractice confided, “The last thing I want is to call the plaintiff a statistic. That’s a guaranteed turn off for the jury.”

The burden of proof in medical malpractice is not as high as the burden of proof in suspected homicide. In the latter, proof of guilt must be beyond reasonable doubt. In medical malpractice, the evidence for negligence need only be marginally more than the doubt that there has been negligence — a 52:48 margin, rather like presidential elections. This is for a sensible reason. If you’re wrong about the guilt of a person suspected of homicide, that could cost an innocent his life. If you’re wrong about the negligence of a doctor — big deal. The insurer pays the money and the society readjusts the costs. The doctor is a bit emotionally roughed up, but he or she will get over it.

In tort, there is a concept known as the Calabresian principle. It is named after Guido Calabresi who analyzed the cost of accidents. According to Calabresi, in an accident, the costs of the tort should be internalized by the lowest cost avoider — the person who could have avoided the accident with the smallest amount of effort. In this case, assuming the patient was a non-smoker, the avoiders of the accident were fate (or unlucky genes) and the radiologist. Now you can’t do much about cosmic injustice. So it is clearly the radiologist who was the lowest cost avoider. He could so easily have recommended a CT. What’s another CT if it can save someone’s life? He should have been in more doubt about the chest X-ray than he was. What’s a bit of doubt if it can save someone’s life?

This case, and similar cases, has implications. Physicians are asked to be mindful of the population, not just the individual patient. The message from policy makers is that we must be sensitive to limited resources. We’re chastised for overutilization of imaging. Yet, it’s hard to see how excess utilization can be curbed unless courts respect evidence-based medicine. It’s at times like this that meaningful tort reform appears painfully conspicuous by its absence from Obamacare.

You might counter that had the radiologist picked up the lung nodule, the lawsuit would never have occurred — that a miss is a miss, regardless of the outcome. Alas, that, too, is not so simple. Perceptual errors are common in interpreting chest X-rays. Researchers have found that a large number of cancers can be seen, in hindsight, on chest X-rays. So much so, that an appeals court once judged that a perceptual error is not necessarily negligence.

This case reminds me of the wisdom of one of my professors during residency. A leading radiologist of his time, he cautioned that, “The first ten thousand chest X-rays are easy.” Puzzled then, but having now interpreted well over ten thousand chest X-rays, I understand what he meant. I’m more aware than before of what I might miss. This has created an odd combination of expertise and insecurity. When the insecurity gets the better of me, I imagine shadows on X-rays, and recommend CAT scans to “rule out a mass.” Sometimes I catch a cancer. But more often than not, I raise false alarms, inconveniencing the patient and wasting resources.

Option traders can avoid trades that are low on the upside and high on the downside. Radiologists do not have that luxury. Paid barely $10 for a chest X-ray, with a multi-million-dollar bounty for missing cancer and a Russian roulette for perceptual errors, radiologists will simply recommend more CAT scans rather than take the risk in declaring that the X-ray is “normal.” The net cost of such verdicts to society is more than $16.7 million.

Saurabh Jha is a radiologist and can be reached on Twitter @RogueRad.  This article originally appeared in the Health Care Blog.

ADVERTISEMENT

Image credit: Shutterstock.com

Prev

Should doctors' personal judgments affect their patients?

January 2, 2017 Kevin 3
…
Next

A Muslim American physician goes to war

January 3, 2017 Kevin 4
…

Tagged as: Radiology

Post navigation

< Previous Post
Should doctors' personal judgments affect their patients?
Next Post >
A Muslim American physician goes to war

ADVERTISEMENT

More by Dr. Saurabh Jha

  • Masks are an effigy of American technocratic incompetence

    Dr. Saurabh Jha
  • False negative: COVID-19 testing’s catch-22

    Dr. Saurabh Jha
  • Why the Lancet’s editorial on Kashmir is unhelpful

    Dr. Saurabh Jha

Related Posts

  • It is time for the Supreme Court to help stem gun deaths

    David Galinsky, MD
  • When it becomes time to embrace fear and loss and let the chaos lead to growth

    Claire Brown
  • Advocating for a sick parent by confronting physician bias

    Erin Paterson
  • Doctors: It’s time to unionize

    Thomas D. Guastavino, MD
  • Finding happiness in the time of COVID

    Anonymous
  • When it comes to pay cuts, it’s time to look beyond physicians

    J. DeWayne Tooson, MD

More in Physician

  • How subjective likability practices undermine Canada’s health workforce recruitment and retention

    Olumuyiwa Bamgbade, MD
  • Why judgment is hurting doctors—and how mindfulness can heal

    Jessie Mahoney, MD
  • Why evidence-based management may be an effective strategy for stronger health care leadership and equity

    Olumuyiwa Bamgbade, MD
  • The gift we keep giving: How medicine demands everything—even our holidays

    Tomi Mitchell, MD
  • From burnout to balance: a neurosurgeon’s bold career redesign

    Jessie Mahoney, MD
  • Why working in Hawai’i health care isn’t all paradise

    Clayton Foster, MD
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • How New Mexico became a malpractice lawsuit hotspot

      Patrick Hudson, MD | Physician
    • Why doctors are reclaiming control from burnout culture

      Maureen Gibbons, MD | Physician
    • Why health care leaders fail at execution—and how to fix it

      Dave Cummings, RN | Policy
    • 5 blind spots that stall physician wealth

      Johnny Medina, MSc | Finance
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why tracking cognitive load could save doctors and patients

      Hiba Fatima Hamid | Education
    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • What the world must learn from the life and death of Hind Rajab

      Saba Qaiser, RN | Conditions
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • Here’s what providers really need in a modern EHR

      Laura Kohlhagen, MD, MBA | Tech
    • Why flashy AI tools won’t fix health care without real infrastructure

      David Carmouche, MD | Tech
  • Recent Posts

    • How subjective likability practices undermine Canada’s health workforce recruitment and retention

      Olumuyiwa Bamgbade, MD | Physician
    • How veteran health care is being transformed by tech and teamwork

      Deborah Lafer Scher | Conditions
    • Why judgment is hurting doctors—and how mindfulness can heal

      Jessie Mahoney, MD | Physician
    • Why medical schools must ditch lectures and embrace active learning

      Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA | Education
    • Why helping people means more than getting an MD

      Vaishali Jha | Education
    • How digital tools are reshaping the doctor-patient relationship

      Vineet Vishwanath | Tech

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

View 14 Comments >

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • How New Mexico became a malpractice lawsuit hotspot

      Patrick Hudson, MD | Physician
    • Why doctors are reclaiming control from burnout culture

      Maureen Gibbons, MD | Physician
    • Why health care leaders fail at execution—and how to fix it

      Dave Cummings, RN | Policy
    • 5 blind spots that stall physician wealth

      Johnny Medina, MSc | Finance
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why tracking cognitive load could save doctors and patients

      Hiba Fatima Hamid | Education
    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • What the world must learn from the life and death of Hind Rajab

      Saba Qaiser, RN | Conditions
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • Here’s what providers really need in a modern EHR

      Laura Kohlhagen, MD, MBA | Tech
    • Why flashy AI tools won’t fix health care without real infrastructure

      David Carmouche, MD | Tech
  • Recent Posts

    • How subjective likability practices undermine Canada’s health workforce recruitment and retention

      Olumuyiwa Bamgbade, MD | Physician
    • How veteran health care is being transformed by tech and teamwork

      Deborah Lafer Scher | Conditions
    • Why judgment is hurting doctors—and how mindfulness can heal

      Jessie Mahoney, MD | Physician
    • Why medical schools must ditch lectures and embrace active learning

      Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA | Education
    • Why helping people means more than getting an MD

      Vaishali Jha | Education
    • How digital tools are reshaping the doctor-patient relationship

      Vineet Vishwanath | Tech

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

Does lead-time bias have a place in court?
14 comments

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...