OBJECTIVES: Incidental findings (IF) are becoming increasingly common due to the proliferation of imaging research. IFs can be life-changing for "healthy" volunteers. This study examined variation in IF management in UK research studies of healthy volunteers, including comparison with ethical and legal guidelines, thus providing baseline data and informing future practice. METHODS: Questionnaire of participant background [medical/non-medical; radiologist/non-radiologist; years as principal investigator (PI)], type of research (involving children or not), institutional policy, volunteer information, radiologist involvement in reporting scans and IF disclosure mechanisms. Investigator's current and perceived "ideal" practice was examined. Participants were PIs performing imaging research of healthy volunteers approved by UK ethics committees (2006-2009). RESULTS: 63/146 (43%) surveys completed. 54/61 (88.5%) had site-specific guidelines. Information commonly provided to volunteers should IF be found: personal data (51/62; 82%), contingency plans (54/62; 87%) and disclosure to general practitioner (GP)/treating physician (47/62; 76%). PIs used different strategies for image review. Commonest: radiologist reports research scans only when researcher suspicious of IF [15/57 (26%) compared with 5/28 (16%) in ideal practice]. Commonest ideal reporting strategy: routine reporting by specialist radiologists [9/28 (29%) compared with 8/57 (14%) in current practice]. 49/56 (87.5%) have a standardised disclosure contingency plan, usually involving GP. PIs most commonly disclosed IFs to volunteers when judged relevant (27/58; 47%), most commonly face to face (22/54; 41%), by volunteer's GP (26/60; 43%). Background of PI influenced consent, reporting and disclosure practice. CONCLUSION: There is wide variation in handling IFs in UK imaging research. Much of the current practice contravenes the vague existing legal and ethical guidelines, and is unlikely to be in the best interests of volunteers or researchers.
OBJECTIVES: Incidental findings (IF) are becoming increasingly common due to the proliferation of imaging research. IFs can be life-changing for "healthy" volunteers. This study examined variation in IF management in UK research studies of healthy volunteers, including comparison with ethical and legal guidelines, thus providing baseline data and informing future practice. METHODS: Questionnaire of participant background [medical/non-medical; radiologist/non-radiologist; years as principal investigator (PI)], type of research (involving children or not), institutional policy, volunteer information, radiologist involvement in reporting scans and IF disclosure mechanisms. Investigator's current and perceived "ideal" practice was examined. Participants were PIs performing imaging research of healthy volunteers approved by UK ethics committees (2006-2009). RESULTS: 63/146 (43%) surveys completed. 54/61 (88.5%) had site-specific guidelines. Information commonly provided to volunteers should IF be found: personal data (51/62; 82%), contingency plans (54/62; 87%) and disclosure to general practitioner (GP)/treating physician (47/62; 76%). PIs used different strategies for image review. Commonest: radiologist reports research scans only when researcher suspicious of IF [15/57 (26%) compared with 5/28 (16%) in ideal practice]. Commonest ideal reporting strategy: routine reporting by specialist radiologists [9/28 (29%) compared with 8/57 (14%) in current practice]. 49/56 (87.5%) have a standardised disclosure contingency plan, usually involving GP. PIs most commonly disclosed IFs to volunteers when judged relevant (27/58; 47%), most commonly face to face (22/54; 41%), by volunteer's GP (26/60; 43%). Background of PI influenced consent, reporting and disclosure practice. CONCLUSION: There is wide variation in handling IFs in UK imaging research. Much of the current practice contravenes the vague existing legal and ethical guidelines, and is unlikely to be in the best interests of volunteers or researchers.
Authors: Sanjiv Kumra; Manzar Ashtari; Britt Anderson; Kelly L Cervellione; L I Kan Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Judy Illes; Matthew P Kirschen; Kim Karetsky; Megan Kelly; Arnold Saha; John E Desmond; Thomas A Raffin; Gary H Glover; Scott W Atlas Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Judy Illes; Matthew P Kirschen; Emmeline Edwards; L R Stanford; Peter Bandettini; Mildred K Cho; Paul J Ford; Gary H Glover; Jennifer Kulynych; Ruth Macklin; Daniel B Michael; Susan M Wolf Journal: Science Date: 2006-02-10 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Carsten Oliver Schmidt; Katrin Hegenscheid; Pia Erdmann; Thomas Kohlmann; Martin Langanke; Henry Völzke; Ralf Puls; Heinrich Assel; Reiner Biffar; Hans Jörgen Grabe Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-12-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andrew J Saykin; Li Shen; Xiaohui Yao; Sungeun Kim; Kwangsik Nho; Shannon L Risacher; Vijay K Ramanan; Tatiana M Foroud; Kelley M Faber; Nadeem Sarwar; Leanne M Munsie; Xiaolan Hu; Holly D Soares; Steven G Potkin; Paul M Thompson; John S K Kauwe; Rima Kaddurah-Daouk; Robert C Green; Arthur W Toga; Michael W Weiner Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 21.566
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: David J Pinato; Chara Stavraka; Mark Tanner; Audrey Esson; Eric W Jacobson; Martin R Wilkins; Vincenzo Libri Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elaine M Sandeman; Maria Del Carmen Valdes Hernandez; Zoe Morris; Mark E Bastin; Catherine Murray; Alan J Gow; Janie Corley; Ross Henderson; Ian J Deary; John M Starr; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 3.240