A head and neck cancer patient dies! Why perform an autopsy: For the relatives, for the clinicians or for the pathologists?

Abstract

It is no secret that autopsy rates at most hospitals worldwide - both teaching and community hospitals - have declined precipitously in recent decades, but is this a desirable state of affairs? This article explores this issue from three viewpoints: that of the family members who grant permission for autopsies; that of the clinicians who seek permission for the autopsy to be carried out; and that of the pathologists who actually perform the post-mortem examination. Family concerns about (the sometimes tangential) matter of organ retention following autopsy have recently been highlighted in Europe, with an accompanying negative overall impression of the autopsy being conveyed by many outlets of the popular media. Clinicians will often concede that they feel somewhat distanced from the whole process of autopsy, and so do not hold it in such high esteem as their predecessors once did decades ago. Pathologists at present often perform autopsies as "additional duties" to be fitted in around their central functions, and so do not see them as a primary task to be accomplished. However, there are reasons why this may be detrimental to patient care, including in particular the fact that clinical/radiographic diagnoses are sometimes not confirmed by the results of a complete autopsy. Suggestions for improving the autopsy rate - in particular amongst head and neck cancer patients - are discussed, and include performance of a more rapid limited autopsy and the designation of specialist pathologists in head and neck cancer to carry out autopsies of these patients as an extension of their clinical duties. One conclusion seems inescapable: to increase autopsy rates, the status of the procedure will necessarily have to be upgraded from that of "afterthought/perfunctory task" to that of "consultation", with all of the shifts in attitude such a modification would entail.