Literature DB >> 16170016

Whole-body CT screening: spectrum of findings and recommendations in 1192 patients.

Claudia D Furtado1, Diego A Aguirre, Claude B Sirlin, David Dang, Stephan K Stamato, Patrick Lee, Farhad Sani, Michelle A Brown, David L Levin, Giovanna Casola.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively determine the frequency and spectrum of findings and recommendations reported with whole-body computed tomographic (CT) screening at a community screening center.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study received institutional review board approval, with waiver of informed consent. The radiologic reports of 1192 consecutive patients who underwent whole-body CT screening of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis at an outpatient imaging center from January to June 2000 were reviewed. Scans were obtained with electron-beam CT without oral or intravenous contrast material. Reported imaging findings and recommendations were retrospectively tabulated and assigned scores. Descriptive statistics were used (means, standard deviations, and percentages); comparisons between subgroups were performed with univariate analysis of variance and chi(2) or Fisher exact tests.
RESULTS: Screening was performed in 1192 patients (mean age, 54 years). Sixty-five percent (774 of 1192) were men and 35% (418 of 1192) were women. Nine hundred three (76%) of 1192 patients were self referred, and 1030 (86%) of 1192 subjects had at least one abnormal finding described in the whole-body CT screening report. There were a total of 3361 findings, with a mean of 2.8 per patient. Findings were described most frequently in the spine (1065 [32%] of 3361), abdominal blood vessels (561 [17%] of 3361), lungs (461 [14%] of 3361), kidneys (353 [11%] of 3361), and liver (183 [5%] of 3361). Four hundred forty-five (37%) patients received at least one recommendation for further evaluation. The most common recommendations were for additional imaging of the lungs or the kidneys.
CONCLUSION: With whole-body CT screening, findings were detected in a large number of subjects, and most findings were benign by description and required no further evaluation. Thirty-seven percent of patients had findings that elicited recommendations for additional evaluation, but further research is required to determine the clinical importance of these findings and the effect on patient care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16170016     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2372041741

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  45 in total

Review 1.  Incidental findings found in "healthy" volunteers during imaging performed for research: current legal and ethical implications.

Authors:  T C Booth; A Jackson; J M Wardlaw; S A Taylor; A D Waldman
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-03-24       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Neglectable benefit of searching for incidental findings in the Dutch-Belgian lung cancer screening trial (NELSON) using low-dose multidetector CT.

Authors:  J C M van de Wiel; Y Wang; D M Xu; H J van der Zaag-Loonen; E J van der Jagt; R J van Klaveren; M Oudkerk
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-01-06       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Indexing thoracic CT reports using a preliminary version of a standardized radiological lexicon (RadLex).

Authors:  Dirk Marwede; Thomas Schulz; Thomas Kahn
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2007-07-28       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Incidental Findings in a Decentralized Lung Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Katherine Janssen; Kelsey Schertz; Nathan Rubin; Abbie Begnaud
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2019-09

Review 5.  [Clinically relevant incidental cardiovascular findings in CT examinations].

Authors:  P Voigt; J Fahnert; D Schramm; A G Bach; T Kahn; A Surov
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 0.635

6.  Ultrasonographic and laboratory screening in clinically normal mature golden retriever dogs.

Authors:  Jinelle A Webb; Gordon M Kirby; Stephanie G Nykamp; Meredith J Gauthier
Journal:  Can Vet J       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.008

7.  Recommendations for additional imaging on emergency department CT examinations: comparison of emergency- and organ-based subspecialty radiologists.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Brent W Matza; Mark P Foran; John M McMenamy
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2012-10-05

8.  Radiological findings on irradiation-CT in patients with non metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Hans J Meyer; Johannes Uhlig; Dominik Schramm; Andreas G Bach; Alexey Surov
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Benign ancient schwannoma of the abdominal wall: an unwanted birthday present.

Authors:  Ravi K Bhatia; Ayan Banerjea; Manisha Ram; Bryony E Lovett
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2010-01-06       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  The fate of radiology report recommendations at a pediatric medical center.

Authors:  Bonmyong Lee; Hansel J Otero; Matthew T Whitehead
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2017-08-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.