An article made available prior to copy editing appeared very recently in the medical journal Thyroid. Entitled The Ethical Implications of the Reclassification of Non Invasive-Follicular Variant Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma , the article is authored by a group from Mt. Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City, and also a representative of the THANC Foundation.
This piece is of particular interest because in seeming contradiction to some opinions recently expressed in a CAP Today article regarding the NIFTP reclassification, these authors state that it’s the physician’s” professional duty to make a sincere and reasonable effort to convey (the) information to the affected patients.”
In the aforementioned piece in CAP Today, an online publication of the College of American Pathologists, noted thyroid pathologist Virginia Livolsi stated that she would not go back and review her past cases of EFVPTC that would now likely be reclassified as NIFTP, a non-cancer. One of the reasons given was that of differences in techniques for sampling encapsulated tumors. The diagnostic criteria for NIFTP requires that the entire tumor capsule be submitted by the pathologist. According to Virginia Livolsi, “older literature” called for the examination of ten sections of a nodule as opposed to the entire capsule. However, her reasoning seems to be contradicted by Gerard Doherty, surgeon and professor at Boston University, earlier in the same CAP Today article. According to Doherty, “I think expert pathologists have been examining the entire capsule for some time. That’s not to say it’s been universally done…”
Another of Livolsi’s apparent objections to reviewing past cases of EFVPTC is her belief that a NIFTP diagnosis cannot be retroactive on principle. With regard to a case of EFVPTC for which her patient had requested a review, Livolsi states: “I have refused to revise the diagnosis, and I have refused to look back at the slides. That case was signed out in 2012. In 2012, that was the diagnosis.” Doherty agrees with her in the article, stating, “We don’t see any clinical reason to go back and tell patients that a group of people has suggested we change the name of a low-risk disease they already knew they had. It doesn’t change clinical management at all. Changing the name doesn’t change the follow-up.”
However, the new article in Thyroid opines that with regard to NIFTP: “… the prudent course would be to attend to the requirements of medical ethics.” In the opinion of the Mt. Sinai team, pathologists are therefore ethically obligated to review cases and contact patients about a change in diagnosis. The justification for the widespread adoption of this policy is that a cancer diagnosis causes “clinically significant” stress and also creates financial burdens for patients. Perhaps most important of all is the primacy of a patient’s basic legal right to information about their own condition.