Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic errors in musculoskeletal oncology and possible mitigation strategies

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Skeletal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to explore sources of diagnostic error in musculoskeletal oncology and potential strategies for mitigating them using case examples. As musculoskeletal tumors are often obvious, the diagnostic errors in musculoskeletal oncology are frequently cognitive. In our experience, the most encountered cognitive biases in musculoskeletal oncologic imaging are as follows: (1) anchoring bias, (2) premature closure, (3) hindsight bias, (4) availability bias, and (5) alliterative bias. Anchoring bias results from failing to adjust an early impression despite receiving additional contrary information. Premature closure is the cognitive equivalent of “satisfaction of search.” Hindsight bias occurs when we retrospectively overestimate the likelihood of correctly interpreting the examination prospectively. In availability bias, the radiologist judges the probability of a diagnosis based on which diagnosis is most easily recalled. Finally, alliterative bias occurs when a prior radiologist’s impression overly influences the diagnostic thinking of another radiologist on a subsequent exam. In addition to cognitive biases, it is also important for radiologists to acknowledge their feelings when making a diagnosis to recognize positive and negative impact of affect on decision making. While errors decrease with radiologist experience, the lack of application of medical knowledge is often the primary source of error rather than a deficiency of knowledge, emphasizing the need to foster clinical reasoning skills and assist cognition. Possible solutions for reducing error exist at both the individual and the system level and include (1) improvement in knowledge and experience, (2) improvement in clinical reasoning and decision-making skills, and (3) improvement in assisting cognition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Itri JN, Patel SH. Heuristics and cognitive error in medical imaging. Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210:1097–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bruno MA, Walker EA, Abujudeh HH. Understanding and confronting our mistakes: the epidemiology of error in radiology and strategies for error reduction. Radiographics. 2015;35:1668–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rozenberg A, Kenneally BE, Abraham JA, Strogus K, Roedl JB, Morrison WB, Zoga AC. Clinical impact of second-opinion musculoskeletal subspecialty interpretations during a multidisciplinary orthopedic oncology conference. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14:931–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chalian M, Grande FD, Thakkar RS, Jalali SF, Chhabra A, Carrino JA. Second-opinion subspecialty consultations in musculoskeletal radiology. Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206:1217–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kahneman D Thinking, fast and slow, 1st ed. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

  6. Brady AP. Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable? Insights Imaging. 2017;8:171–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Busby LP, Courtier JL, Glastonbury CM. Bias in radiology: the how and why of misses and misinterpretations. Radiographics. 2018;38:236–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Croskerry P, Singhal G, Mamede S. Cognitive debiasing 1: origins of bias and theory of debiasing. Bmj Qual Saf. 2013;22:ii58–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Onder O, Yarasir Y, Azizova A, Durhan G, Onur MR, Ariyurek OM. Errors, discrepancies and underlying bias in radiology with case examples: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging. 2021;12:51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Waite S, Scott J, Gale B, Fuchs T, Kolla S, Reede D. Interpretive error in radiology. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208:739–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Blumenthal-Barby JS, Krieger H. Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making. Med Decis Making. 2014;35:539–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kumar B, Ferguson K, Swee M, Suneja M. Diagnostic reasoning by expert clinicians: what distinguishes them from their peers? Cureus. 2021;13:e19722.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185:1124–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Korteling JE, Brouwer A-M, Toet A. A neural network framework for cognitive bias. Front Psychol. 2018;9:1561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pohl RF. Cognitive illusions: intriguing phenomena in thinking, judgment and memory. 2nd ed. Psychology Press; 2016.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Dimara E, Franconeri S, Plaisant C, Bezerianos A, Dragicevic P. A task-based taxonomy of cognitive biases for information visualization. Ieee T Vis Comput Gr. 2018;26:1413–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Berlin L. Alliterative errors. Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:925–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Liu G, Chimowitz H, Isbell LM. Affective influences on clinical reasoning and diagnosis: insights from social psychology and new research opportunities. Diagnosis. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2021-0115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kandasamy N, Garfinkel SN, Page L, Hardy B, Critchley HD, Gurnell M, Coates JM. Interoceptive ability predicts survival on a London trading floor. Sci Rep-uk. 2016;6:32986.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Riskin A, Erez A, Foulk TA, Riskin-Geuz KS, Ziv A, Sela R, Pessach-Gelblum L, Bamberger PA. Rudeness and medical team performance. Pediatrics. 2017;139:e20162305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Croskerry P, Campbell SG. A cognitive autopsy approach towards explaining diagnostic failure. Cureus. 2021;13:e17041.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Norman GR, Monteiro SD, Sherbino J, Ilgen JS, Schmidt HG, Mamede S. The causes of errors in clinical reasoning. Acad Med. 2017;92:23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Graber ML, Kissam S, Payne VL, Meyer AND, Sorensen A, Lenfestey N, Tant E, Henriksen K, LaBresh K, Singh H. Cognitive interventions to reduce diagnostic error: a narrative review. Bmj Qual Saf. 2012;21:535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rozenberg A, Kenneally BE, Abraham JA, Strogus K, Roedl JB, Morrison WB, Zoga AC. Second opinions in orthopedic oncology imaging: can fellowship training reduce clinically significant discrepancies? Skeletal Radiol. 2019;48:143–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Stacy GS, Dixon LB. Pitfalls in MR image interpretation prompting referrals to an orthopedic oncology clinic1. Radiographics. 2007;27:805–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bedoya MA, Chi AS, Harsha AK, Oh SC, Cook TS. Musculoskeletal outside interpretation (MOI-RADS): an automated quality assurance tool to prospectively track discrepancies in second-opinion interpretations in musculoskeletal imaging. Skeletal Radiol. 2021;50:723–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rupani A, Hallin M, Jones RL, Fisher C, Thway K, Verhoef C. Diagnostic differences in expert second-opinion consultation cases at a tertiary sarcoma center. Sarcoma. 2020;2020:9810170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hartley LJ, Evans S, Davies MA, Kelly S, Gregory JJ. A daily diagnostic multidisciplinary meeting to reduce time to definitive diagnosis in the context of primary bone and soft tissue sarcoma. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2021;14:115–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Shah A, Botchu R, Ashford RU, Rennie WJ. Diagnostic triage for sarcoma: an effective model for reducing referrals to the sarcoma multidisciplinary team. Br J Radiology. 2015;88:20150037.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Davis DA, Thomson MA, Oxman AD, Haynes RB. Changing physician performance: a systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. JAMA. 1995;274:700–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee CS, Nagy PG, Weaver SJ, Newman-Toker DE. Cognitive and system factors contributing to diagnostic errors in radiology. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:611–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Croskerry P, Singhal G, Mamede S. Cognitive debiasing 2: impediments to and strategies for change. Bmj Qual Saf. 2013;22:ii65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Feyzi-Behnagh R, Azevedo R, Legowski E, Reitmeyer K, Tseytlin E, Crowley RS. Metacognitive scaffolds improve self-judgments of accuracy in a medical intelligent tutoring system. Instr Sci. 2014;42:159–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lambe KA, O’Reilly G, Kelly BD, Curristan S. Dual-process cognitive interventions to enhance diagnostic reasoning: a systematic review. Bmj Qual Saf. 2016;25:808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lex J, Gregory J, Allen C, Reid J, Stevenson J. Distinguishing bone and soft tissue infections mimicking sarcomas requires multimodal multidisciplinary team assessment. Ann Royal Coll Surg Engl. 2019;101:405–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Neuhaus C, Lutnæs DE, Bergström J. Medical teamwork and the evolution of safety science: a critical review. Cognition Technology Work. 2020;22:13–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Al-Ibraheemi A, Folpe AL. Voluntary second opinions in pediatric bone and soft tissue pathology. Int J Surg Pathol. 2016;24:685–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lurkin A, Ducimetière F, Vince DR, et al. Epidemiological evaluation of concordance between initial diagnosis and central pathology review in a comprehensive and prospective series of sarcoma patients in the Rhone-Alpes region. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:150–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ray-Coquard I, Montesco MC, Coindre JM, et al. Sarcoma: concordance between initial diagnosis and centralized expert review in a population-based study within three European regions. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:2442–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Wolf M, Krause J, Carney PA, Bogart A, Kurvers RHJM. Collective intelligence meets medical decision-making: the collective outperforms the best radiologist. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0134269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, 500 University Drive H066, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA

    Donald J. Flemming & Carissa White

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

    Edward Fox

  3. Department of Pathology, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

    Julie Fanburg-Smith & Eric Cochran

Authors
  1. Donald J. Flemming
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carissa White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edward Fox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Julie Fanburg-Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eric Cochran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donald J. Flemming.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Key points

• Diagnostic errors are more likely to be cognitive than perceptual in oncologic imaging.

• Knowledge and experience reduce the likelihood of errors.

• Multidisciplinary diagnostic teams may reduce errors if group interactions are optimized.

• Individuals and groups should learn to recognize impact of cognitive bias and adopt strategies such as force functions to mitigate their impact.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Flemming, D.J., White, C., Fox, E. et al. Diagnostic errors in musculoskeletal oncology and possible mitigation strategies. Skeletal Radiol 52, 493–503 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-022-04166-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-022-04166-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation