In short it depends. I will speak generically about this.
Different tumors, infections, cancers, organs, and types of needle biopsy techniques have different risks of needle track seeding. Any needle biopsy should take these risks into account and only be performed when the patient gives consent and the benefits of the biopsy outweigh the risks (which include needle track seeding). In this setting, as long as the technique is performed properly, even if seeding were to occur, it would not be considered by most in the profession of medicine to be a medical error. In some cases seeding is irrelevant.
However, failure of any of the above could potentially imply a medical error. For example, failure to consent a patient is considered an error. So is performing a biopsy when the risk outweighs the benefit (this can be subjective) or if the technique is performed improperly and causes potentially harmful seeding.
Two points of caution about this topic because we are not talking specifics. One, I don't want anyone to assume biopsy track seeding has occurred just because there is disease progression. It is common for us as humans to assign blame and or assign a cause and effect relationships where it doesn't exist.
Two, there are many situations where needle track seeding never occurs and should not weigh into the consideration about whether or not to have a biopsy. For example, core needle biopsies of breast cancers do not result in seeding and concept of seeding in this case is irrelevant and should never deter anyone from having a breast biopsy. There are many other examples.
Ryan Polselli, M.D., Diplomate of the American Board of Radiology, Fellowship Trained Breast Imaging Radiologist
Different tumors, infections, cancers, organs, and types of needle biopsy techniques have different risks of needle track seeding. Any needle biopsy should take these risks into account and only be performed when the patient gives consent and the benefits of the biopsy outweigh the risks (which include needle track seeding). In this setting, as long as the technique is performed properly, even if seeding were to occur, it would not be considered by most in the profession of medicine to be a medical error. In some cases seeding is irrelevant.
However, failure of any of the above could potentially imply a medical error. For example, failure to consent a patient is considered an error. So is performing a biopsy when the risk outweighs the benefit (this can be subjective) or if the technique is performed improperly and causes potentially harmful seeding.
Two points of caution about this topic because we are not talking specifics. One, I don't want anyone to assume biopsy track seeding has occurred just because there is disease progression. It is common for us as humans to assign blame and or assign a cause and effect relationships where it doesn't exist.
Two, there are many situations where needle track seeding never occurs and should not weigh into the consideration about whether or not to have a biopsy. For example, core needle biopsies of breast cancers do not result in seeding and concept of seeding in this case is irrelevant and should never deter anyone from having a breast biopsy. There are many other examples.
Ryan Polselli, M.D., Diplomate of the American Board of Radiology, Fellowship Trained Breast Imaging Radiologist