Objective: This study examined the up-to-date facts from real cases of emergency medical litigations to provide information to act appropriately in medical lawsuits against emergency medicine specialists. Methods: Data were collected from lawsuits from 2008 to 2020. Thirty-nine cases were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Six emergency medicine specialists and one resident with a lawyer’s license participated in the analysis. Results: Medical litigations have surged since 2015. The lawsuits were due mainly to misdiagnoses and violations of the duty to explain. Medical staff won in 12 (38.7%) cases and lost in 19 (61.3%). The main reason for losing was a violation of the duty of care. In criminal claims, 50% of cases resulted in confinement. The win rate was 1.4 times higher in cases where consultation was requested from other specialties (42.9% and 29.4% win with consultation and without, respectively). Conclusion The win rate in lawsuits is decreasing, and the level of penalty is becoming more severe. The decrease in the violation of duty to explain was attributed to education through the years. The win rate was higher when consulting with other specialists. Hence, active consultation is recommended. In addition, the system of radiology interpretation requires improvement because of the many misdiagnoses from reading diagnostic images.

Objective: This study examined the up-to-date facts from real cases of emergency medical litigations to provide information to act appropriately in medical lawsuits against emergency medicine specialists. Methods: Data were collected from lawsuits from 2008 to 2020. Thirty-nine cases were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Six emergency medicine specialists and one resident with a lawyer’s license participated in the analysis. Results: Medical litigations have surged since 2015. The lawsuits were due mainly to misdiagnoses and violations of the duty to explain. Medical staff won in 12 (38.7%) cases and lost in 19 (61.3%). The main reason for losing was a violation of the duty of care. In criminal claims, 50% of cases resulted in confinement. The win rate was 1.4 times higher in cases where consultation was requested from other specialties (42.9% and 29.4% win with consultation and without, respectively). Conclusion The win rate in lawsuits is decreasing, and the level of penalty is becoming more severe. The decrease in the violation of duty to explain was attributed to education through the years. The win rate was higher when consulting with other specialists. Hence, active consultation is recommended. In addition, the system of radiology interpretation requires improvement because of the many misdiagnoses from reading diagnostic images.

Objective: This study examined the up-to-date facts from real cases of emergency medical litigations to provide information to act appropriately in medical lawsuits against emergency medicine specialists. Methods: Data were collected from lawsuits from 2008 to 2020. Thirty-nine cases were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Six emergency medicine specialists and one resident with a lawyer’s license participated in the analysis. Results: Medical litigations have surged since 2015. The lawsuits were due mainly to misdiagnoses and violations of the duty to explain. Medical staff won in 12 (38.7%) cases and lost in 19 (61.3%). The main reason for losing was a violation of the duty of care. In criminal claims, 50% of cases resulted in confinement. The win rate was 1.4 times higher in cases where consultation was requested from other specialties (42.9% and 29.4% win with consultation and without, respectively). Conclusion The win rate in lawsuits is decreasing, and the level of penalty is becoming more severe. The decrease in the violation of duty to explain was attributed to education through the years. The win rate was higher when consulting with other specialists. Hence, active consultation is recommended. In addition, the system of radiology interpretation requires improvement because of the many misdiagnoses from reading diagnostic images.

Background and Objectives: Metformin, a commonly used antidiabetic drug, has been reported to exhibit promising anticancer effects across various tumor types. This study investigated the effectiveness of combining metformin with radiotherapy (RT) to treat head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).Materials and Method In vitro experiments were conducted in which FaDu and SCC-25 cells were treated with metformin, followed by irradiation. Cell proliferation was evaluated by MTT assay, and apoptosis was assessed by staining with annexin V-fluorescein isothiocyanate/ propidium iodide, followed by flow cytometry. Western blotting was performed to evaluate changes in apoptotic markers. In vivo experiments were performed using a murine AT-84 allograft model, where tumor volume was measured and serum samples were collected to assess the level of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Results: The combination of metformin and RT significantly reduced cell proliferation in a dose- and time-dependent manner, and led to a significant increase in the apoptotic rate, accompanied by the upregulation of cleaved caspase-8 and FoxO3, and the downregulation of Bcl-2. The combination treatment also exhibited antiangiogenic effects, as shown by the reduced hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha level and inhibited tube formation in the endothelial cells. The combined therapy in the mouse model led to marked decrease in tumor volume and the serum VEGF level in comparison to both the control group and the RT alone. Conclusion The concurrent use of metformin and RT successfully suppressed cell proliferation, triggered apoptosis, and increased the antiangiogenic effects in HNSCC. These results support the use of metformin as an adjunct to RT for the treatment of HNSCC.

Background and Objectives: Metformin, a commonly used antidiabetic drug, has been reported to exhibit promising anticancer effects across various tumor types. This study investigated the effectiveness of combining metformin with radiotherapy (RT) to treat head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).Materials and Method In vitro experiments were conducted in which FaDu and SCC-25 cells were treated with metformin, followed by irradiation. Cell proliferation was evaluated by MTT assay, and apoptosis was assessed by staining with annexin V-fluorescein isothiocyanate/ propidium iodide, followed by flow cytometry. Western blotting was performed to evaluate changes in apoptotic markers. In vivo experiments were performed using a murine AT-84 allograft model, where tumor volume was measured and serum samples were collected to assess the level of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Results: The combination of metformin and RT significantly reduced cell proliferation in a dose- and time-dependent manner, and led to a significant increase in the apoptotic rate, accompanied by the upregulation of cleaved caspase-8 and FoxO3, and the downregulation of Bcl-2. The combination treatment also exhibited antiangiogenic effects, as shown by the reduced hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha level and inhibited tube formation in the endothelial cells. The combined therapy in the mouse model led to marked decrease in tumor volume and the serum VEGF level in comparison to both the control group and the RT alone. Conclusion The concurrent use of metformin and RT successfully suppressed cell proliferation, triggered apoptosis, and increased the antiangiogenic effects in HNSCC. These results support the use of metformin as an adjunct to RT for the treatment of HNSCC.