OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review on the prevalence of incidental findings in computed tomographic (CT) screening studies of the chest. METHODS: We selected CT screening studies of the chest (screening for coronary artery disease [CAD] [coronary calcium and CT coronary angiography] and lung cancer screening). Screening protocols, descriptions of baseline characteristics, range of incidental findings, and recommendations for follow-up were abstracted. RESULTS: Eleven chest CT screening studies were identified. The proportion of people with at least 1 imaging abnormality requiring follow-up varied widely between studies (3%-41.5%). This was largely due to considerable variation in follow-up recommendations for incidental findings across studies. Analyzed by subgroup, 7.7% (confidence interval, 7.0%-8.3%) of 6421 participants in CAD screening had further investigations compared with 14.2% (confidence interval, 13.2%-15.2%) of 4531 participants in lung cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: In this review, 7.7% and 14.2% of patients undergoing either CAD or lung cancer screening with CT were found to have clinically significant incidental findings requiring additional investigations.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review on the prevalence of incidental findings in computed tomographic (CT) screening studies of the chest. METHODS: We selected CT screening studies of the chest (screening for coronary artery disease [CAD] [coronary calcium and CT coronary angiography] and lung cancer screening). Screening protocols, descriptions of baseline characteristics, range of incidental findings, and recommendations for follow-up were abstracted. RESULTS: Eleven chest CT screening studies were identified. The proportion of people with at least 1 imaging abnormality requiring follow-up varied widely between studies (3%-41.5%). This was largely due to considerable variation in follow-up recommendations for incidental findings across studies. Analyzed by subgroup, 7.7% (confidence interval, 7.0%-8.3%) of 6421 participants in CAD screening had further investigations compared with 14.2% (confidence interval, 13.2%-15.2%) of 4531 participants in lung cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: In this review, 7.7% and 14.2% of patients undergoing either CAD or lung cancer screening with CT were found to have clinically significant incidental findings requiring additional investigations.
Authors: Christoph I Lee; Emily B Tsai; Bronislava M Sigal; Sylvia K Plevritis; Alan M Garber; Geoffrey D Rubin Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Diana L Lam; Pari V Pandharipande; Janie M Lee; Constance D Lehman; Christoph I Lee Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kelley R Branch; Brian W Bresnahan; David L Veenstra; William P Shuman; William S Weintraub; Janet M Busey; Daniel J Elliott; Lee M Mitsumori; Jared Strote; Kathleen Jobe; Ted Dubinsky; James H Caldwell Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2011-12-30 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Anna Espinoza; Kendra Malone; Elizabeth Balyakina; Kimberly G Fulda; Roberto Cardarelli Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2014 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: M J A Gondrie; W P Th M Mali; C F M Buckens; P C A Jacobs; D E Grobbee; Y van der Graaf Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2010-10-02 Impact factor: 8.082