Filenews 10 September 2025 - by Fanis Makridis
Serious questions are raised regarding the specialized examinations to which patients are subjected in Cyprus.
The above report is linked to a case brought to the attention of "F" and concerns legal remedies received a few days ago by the relatives of a woman, who died of metastatic pancreatic cancer at the age of 63.
Her family is taking legal action against a well-known radiology center and a doctor who made a report on the result of the specialized examination, which the deceased had undergone three years before she lost her life and while she was 60 years old.
In short, the position of her relatives is that the initial examination had findings that revealed that the deceased had pancreatic cancer, but the alleged negligence of the doctor of the medical center and the failure to make a correct diagnosis through imaging tests, led to the death of the patient before even three years had passed since her initial examination.
According to her relatives, the unfortunate woman had been diagnosed with early-stage endometrial cancer after hysteroscopy (endoscopic examination) and underwent a removal operation. She then underwent an MRI (18/11/2021) of the abdomen and pelvis at the radiology center, with the doctor ruling out the possibility of the disease in question, talking about normal results and insignificant findings ("unremarkable").
However, due to complications with her health, about 30 months later she underwent a new examination at the same radiology center (2/7/2023), while samples were also taken for biopsy. The results had shown that the deceased now had pancreatic cancer and metastasis to the fascia (membrane that covers the internal organs of the abdomen).
Despite the treatments that the unfortunate woman underwent, she finally lost her life on 24/9/2024 before even three years had passed since the first examination.
What is surprising, however, is the claim of the relatives of the deceased, that the initial examination, at a time when, according to the defendant doctor who prepared the MRI report, she did not present any findings, is refuted by her colleagues.
The alleged position of the relatives of the deceased as recorded in the claim report states the following: "... in a medical certificate received and/or prepared on or around 1/3/2024, the following were recorded in relation to the MRI dated 18/11/2021: "Progressively reduced dimensions depict the known treatment in the tail of the pancreas, which in the last MT is measured in maximum diameter at a transverse level of approximately 3.7cm compared to approximately 4.9 cm in the HR of 2/7/2023, also distinguished in the MT of 18/11/2021".
Finally, according to the same certificate: "Focal lesions with characters of second pathic localizations in the solid organs of the upper abdomen and the retroperitoneal space are not recognized".
And it is added to the lawsuit of her relatives: "It appears clearly and without particular difficulty that, during the examination dated 18/11/2021, the deceased already had damage to the tail of the pancreas, without having developed into peritoneal disease and that the Defendant no. 2 (s.s. doctor of the competition center) neglected and/or failed to locate and/or record it in the medical certificate he issued".
Furthermore, it is a claim by the Plaintiffs that during the examination dated 18/11/2021, there were findings in the tail of the pancreas which Defendant 2 should have identified and recorded in the medical report and/or report she prepared.
The conduct and/or omissions in question and/or the misdiagnosis and/or the erroneous conclusions and/or findings and/or conclusions of the Defendants no. 1 and/or 2 constitute gross negligence and/or breach of duty and as a result of these the Deceased delayed for about 2 years in the early detection and/or diagnosis and/or in the timely treatment and/or taking the appropriate treatment to treat and/or reduce and/or not worsen the problem she was facing and which afflicted her".
He reassured a 37-year-old woman, who two months later was diagnosed with advanced cancer
According to a case brought to light through an article by "F" last February (21/2/2025), a 37-year-old woman lost her life due to cancer that was not diagnosed in time.
The plaintiff's daughter claimed that while the doctor who examined her mother reassured her that she had cervicitis, another doctor two months later detected advanced, stage three cancer.
The 37-year-old visited a well-known Cypriot gynaecologist at a medical center for a year. According to the claim/complaint of her relatives, although she complained of discomfort, the doctor in question reassured her. He had referred her for tests and on the basis of these he had diagnosed that there was an infection and cervicitis. Two months after the last examination, the woman wanted to get a second opinion, since the discomfort was intense. So, he arranged an appointment with another doctor of this specialty and there the facts were overturned. The latter, realizing that something was wrong, immediately referred her to specialized medical tests that showed that she had stage three cancer. Despite the treatments, it seems that the condition was not reversible due to untimely diagnosis. The woman finally passed away in January 2025 in her hometown where she had gone.
The case of the 37-year-old had been brought to the attention of the Pancyprian Medical Association. The complaint sent through a lawyer to the PIS included documents, medical certificates, but also documents of communication between the gynaecologist in complaint and the patient.
In the introductory letter of a lawyer, who also acted on behalf of the minor daughter of the deceased, the positions of her relatives are recorded on the events that they believe led to the death of the 37-year-old and requested "an investigation of the case by the Pancyprian Medical Association, as if the above is proven, we consider that there was serious medical negligence, which led to a delayed medical examination and ultimately to the loss of the patient's life".
It was added that "the family of the deceased considers that the acts and omissions of the gynaecologist in question may constitute criminal medical negligence and a violation of the patient's right to timely and proper medical care".
