OBJECTIVE: To review new incidental findings detected on low-resolution CT attenuation correction (CTAC) images acquired during single-photon emission CT (SPECT-CT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and to determine whether the CTAC images had diagnostic value and warrant reporting. METHODS: A multicentre study was performed in four UK nuclear medicine departments. CTAC images acquired as part of MPI performed using SPECT were evaluated to identify incidental findings. New findings considered to be clinically significant were evaluated further. Positive predictive value (PPV) was determined at the time of definitive diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 1819 patients studied, 497 (27.3%) had a positive CTAC finding. 51 (2.8%) patients had findings that were clinically significant at the time of the CTAC report and had not been previously diagnosed. Only four (0.2%) of these were potentially detrimental to patient outcome. CONCLUSION: One centre had a PPV of 0%, and the study suggests that these CTAC images should not be reported. Two centres with more modern equipment had low PPVs of 0% and 6%, respectively, and further research is suggested prior to drawing a conclusion. The centre with best quality CT had a PPV of 67%, and the study suggests that CTAC images from this equipment should be reported. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study is unique compared with previous studies that have reported only the potential to identify incidental findings on low-resolution CT images. This study both identifies and evaluates new clinically significant incidental findings, and it demonstrates that the benefit of reporting the CTAC images depends on the type of equipment used.
OBJECTIVE: To review new incidental findings detected on low-resolution CT attenuation correction (CTAC) images acquired during single-photon emission CT (SPECT-CT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and to determine whether the CTAC images had diagnostic value and warrant reporting. METHODS: A multicentre study was performed in four UK nuclear medicine departments. CTAC images acquired as part of MPI performed using SPECT were evaluated to identify incidental findings. New findings considered to be clinically significant were evaluated further. Positive predictive value (PPV) was determined at the time of definitive diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 1819 patients studied, 497 (27.3%) had a positive CTAC finding. 51 (2.8%) patients had findings that were clinically significant at the time of the CTAC report and had not been previously diagnosed. Only four (0.2%) of these were potentially detrimental to patient outcome. CONCLUSION: One centre had a PPV of 0%, and the study suggests that these CTAC images should not be reported. Two centres with more modern equipment had low PPVs of 0% and 6%, respectively, and further research is suggested prior to drawing a conclusion. The centre with best quality CT had a PPV of 67%, and the study suggests that CTAC images from this equipment should be reported. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study is unique compared with previous studies that have reported only the potential to identify incidental findings on low-resolution CT images. This study both identifies and evaluates new clinically significant incidental findings, and it demonstrates that the benefit of reporting the CTAC images depends on the type of equipment used.
Authors: Heber MacMahon; John H M Austin; Gordon Gamsu; Christian J Herold; James R Jett; David P Naidich; Edward F Patz; Stephen J Swensen Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: B Hesse; T B Lindhardt; W Acampa; C Anagnostopoulos; J Ballinger; J J Bax; L Edenbrandt; A Flotats; G Germano; T Gmeiner Stopar; P Franken; A Kelion; A Kjaer; D Le Guludec; M Ljungberg; A F Maenhout; C Marcassa; J Marving; F McKiddie; W M Schaefer; L Stegger; R Underwood Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jimmy Machaalany; Yeung Yam; Terrence D Ruddy; Arun Abraham; Li Chen; Rob S Beanlands; Benjamin J W Chow Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: F Laspas; A Roussakis; R Efthimiadou; D Papaioannou; S Papadopoulos; J Andreou Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: Mouaz H Al-Mallah; Timothy M Bateman; Kelley R Branch; Andrew Crean; Eric L Gingold; Randall C Thompson; Sarah E McKenney; Edward J Miller; Venkatesh L Murthy; Koen Nieman; Todd C Villines; Michael V Yester; Andrew J Einstein; John J Mahmarian Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2022-09-02 Impact factor: 3.872
Authors: Joanne Coward; Richard Lawson; Tom Kane; Mark Elias; Andrea Howes; James Birchall; Peter Hogg Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Gaik Si Quah; James R French; Damon J Gordon; Laximi Y Juvarkar; Farid Meybodi; Jeremy Hsu; Elisabeth Elder Journal: ANZ J Surg Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 2.025