On Jan 4, 2012,
Argentine President Cristina Kirchner underwent a total thyroid gland removal for papillary thyroid cancer.
On Jan 7, 2012, it was announced that she never had thyroid cancer in the first place!
See news report.
Why did this happen? And it does happen unfortunately to not only President of a nation, but to ordinary citizens.
Without benefit of having access to her medical records, I suspect her medical course went something like this which is what happens in the vast majority of patients with a
thyroid mass...
She probably had a full medical evaluation including an ultrasound of her
thyroid gland which revealed a nodule or mass.
She underwent an ultrasound guided needle biopsy in order to obtain some cells for pathology review. I suspect that the pathologist reported suspicion for papillary thyroid carcinoma. She may even have undergone a thyroid scan which revealed a cold nodule (increasing the likelihood but does not confirm cancer).
Based on a diagnosis obtained on a needle biopsy, standard of care treatment is complete
thyroid removal followed by radioactive iodine treatment.
I suspect the surgeon who did the surgery did discuss with the patient the option of removing only half the thyroid gland (side with the mass) and waiting on final pathology to confirm presence of cancer before removing the rest of the thyroid gland. However, this would mean TWO separate operations on different days as it does require time for final pathology results to become available.
Given I'm sure President Kirchner is a VERY busy person, she probably elected to have the whole thyroid gland removed rather than undergoing the possibility of two operations. The risk being she may ultimately have a total thyroidectomy done when no cancer was actually present at all!
SO... was there a mistake made (if any)?
Was it the pathologist who reported cancer in the needle biopsy?
Was it the surgeon who did not confirm cancer by removing only half the thyroid first?
Let's look into the mind of the pathologist...
From the pathologist perspective, it is better to be safe and over-call things... because it is FAR worse to miss a cancer diagnosis. Imagine if the pathologist stated NO thyroid cancer was seen on the needle biopsy... only to be wrong and the Argentine president dying of thyroid cancer at some point in the future due to this misdiagnosis. The medical-legal liability and fear of being sued forces not only pathologists but also radiologists to report slight abnormal findings just to be on the safe side. Such reports will often state:
"Cells [or CT scan] have some features suggestive of cancer. Clinical correlation recommended."
This vague statement can be interpreted in two ways... The pathologist is NOT saying there is cancer present. He is stating it
might be present, but he's not sure. Which means the burden of liability now passes to the surgeon...
From the surgeon's perspective, he now has to deal with whether to operate or not based on an equivocal diagnosis on needle biopsy. What if he does NOT operate and cancer WAS present? There was than a delay in cancer treatment and theoretical decrease in survival.
OR... take the safe route and operate, but acknowledge that there is the possibility that no cancer was present and that surgery was actually not truly needed in the end. Complicating this course of action is that surgery has risks (and what a bummer if "unnecessary" surgery was performed and complications happened).
The compromise solution would have been to remove just the side where the thyroid nodule was present, but than a 2nd operation would have been needed if cancer WAS found.
So, was there "malpractice" committed by any physician in the care of President Kirchner?
Probably not because the decision making by various physicians in her care probably tended towards being safe rather than sorry (for not only the patient, but also the physicians).
There are many variations on this theme... Other courses of action that could have occurred or been taken include:
1) Monitoring with repeat ultrasounds and needle biopsies
2) Getting multiple 2nd opinions
3) Repeating radiological scans
etc
etc
Danger is what if some say do it and some say don't do it. Some scans or needle biopsies suggestive for cancer and others that aren't?
As the old saying goes, too many cooks ruin the soup. OR, you see five doctors, you may get 5 different opinions.
At some point, YOU as the patient needs to decide what to do and live with the consequences of your decision.
Why does this even occur???
Because NO test is 100% accurate.
Source:Argentine President Cristina Kirchner wrongly diagnosed with cancer. The Telegraph Jan 7, 2012.
