Errors in cancer diagnosis: current understanding and future directions
Abstract
PURPOSE: Errors in cancer diagnosis are likely the most harmful and expensive types of diagnostic errors. We reviewed the literature to understand the prevalence, origins, and prevention of errors in cancer diagnosis, focusing on common cancers for which early diagnosis offers clear benefit (melanoma and cancers of the breast, colon, and lung). METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library and PubMed from 1966 until April 2007 for publications that met our review criteria and manually searched references of key publications. Our search yielded 110 studies, of which nine were prospective studies and the remaining were retrospective studies. RESULTS: Errors in cancer diagnosis were not uncommon in autopsy studies and were associated with significant harm and expense in malpractice claims. Literature on prevalence was scant. For each type of cancer, we classified preventable errors according to their origins in patient-physician encounters in the clinic setting, diagnostic test or procedure performance, pathologic confirmation of diagnosis, follow-up of patient or test result, or patient-related delays. CONCLUSION: The literature reflects advanced knowledge of contributory factors and prevention for diagnostic errors related to the performance of procedures and imaging tests and emerging understanding of pathology errors. However, prospective studies are few, as are studies of diagnostic errors arising from the clinical encounter and patient follow-up. Future research should examine further the system and cognitive problems that lead to the many contributory factors we identified, and address interdisciplinary interventions to prevent errors in cancer diagnosis.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Missed laboratory results or delayed recognition of results creates a significant potential for outpatient diagnostic errors, adverse events, and liability claims.
“missed laboratory results or delayed recognition of results leads to a significant potential for outpatient diagnostic errors, adverse events and liability claims.”
From Notification of Abnormal Lab Test Results in an Electronic Medical Record: Do Any Safety Concerns Remain? (2010) · cites this paper as [17]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 164 · Cited by 121
- Authors
- Singh, H., Sethi, S., Raber, M., & Petersen, L. A.
- Affiliations
- Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2007-11-01
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 31
- Pages
- 5009-5018
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2046692496
- Cited by
- 121
- References
- 164
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 0.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (K23CA125585)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
- Keywords
- diagnostic errors, cancer diagnosis, error prevention, melanoma, breast cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, autopsy studies, malpractice claims, diagnostic performance, imaging errors, patient follow-up, patient-physician encounters, health system factors, cognitive errors
- MeSH terms
- Diagnostic Errors, Humans, Neoplasms, Quality of Health Care, Prevalence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review