Amanda A G Nijhuis1,2, Mbathio Dieng3, Nikita Khanna3, Sally J Lord3, Jo Dalton4, Alexander M Menzies1,5, Robin M Turner6, Jay Allen1, Robyn P M Saw1,7,8, Omgo E Nieweg1,7,8, John F Thompson1,7,8, Rachael L Morton9,10. 1. Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2. University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Level 6, Medical Foundation Building, 92-94 Parramatta Road, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia. 4. Poche Centre, Clinical Trials, Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 6. Biostatistics Unit, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 7. Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 8. Department of Melanoma and Surgical Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 9. Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. rachael.morton@ctc.usyd.edu.au. 10. NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Level 6, Medical Foundation Building, 92-94 Parramatta Road, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia. rachael.morton@ctc.usyd.edu.au.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to quantify false-positive and incidental findings from annual surveillance imaging in asymptomatic, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III melanoma patients. METHODS: This was a cohort study of patients treated at Melanoma Institute Australia (2000-2015) with baseline computed tomography (CT) or positron emission tomography (PET)/CT imaging and at least two annual surveillance scans. False-positives were defined as findings suspicious for melanoma recurrence that were not melanoma, confirmed by histopathology, subsequent imaging, or clinical follow-up, while incidental findings were defined as non-melanoma-related findings requiring further action. Outcomes of incidental findings were classified as 'benign' if they resolved spontaneously or were not seriously harmful; 'malignant' if a second malignancy was identified; or 'other' if potentially harmful. RESULTS: Among 154 patients, 1022 scans were performed (154 baseline staging, 868 surveillance) during a median follow-up of 85 months (interquartile range 56-112); 57 patients (37%) developed a recurrence. For baseline and surveillance imaging, 124 false-positive results and incidental findings were identified in 81 patients (53%). The frequency of these findings was 5-14% per year, and an additional 181 tests, procedures, and referrals were initiated to investigate these findings. The diagnosis was benign in 109 findings of 124 findings (88%). Fifteen patients with a benign finding underwent an unnecessary invasive procedure. Surveillance imaging identified distant metastases in 20 patients (13%). CONCLUSION: False-positive results and incidental findings occur in at least half of all patients undergoing annual surveillance imaging, and the additional healthcare use is substantial. These findings persist over time. Clinicians need to be aware of these risks and discuss them with patients, alongside the expected benefits of surveillance imaging.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to quantify false-positive and incidental findings from annual surveillance imaging in asymptomatic, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III melanomapatients. METHODS: This was a cohort study of patients treated at Melanoma Institute Australia (2000-2015) with baseline computed tomography (CT) or positron emission tomography (PET)/CT imaging and at least two annual surveillance scans. False-positives were defined as findings suspicious for melanoma recurrence that were not melanoma, confirmed by histopathology, subsequent imaging, or clinical follow-up, while incidental findings were defined as non-melanoma-related findings requiring further action. Outcomes of incidental findings were classified as 'benign' if they resolved spontaneously or were not seriously harmful; 'malignant' if a second malignancy was identified; or 'other' if potentially harmful. RESULTS: Among 154 patients, 1022 scans were performed (154 baseline staging, 868 surveillance) during a median follow-up of 85 months (interquartile range 56-112); 57 patients (37%) developed a recurrence. For baseline and surveillance imaging, 124 false-positive results and incidental findings were identified in 81 patients (53%). The frequency of these findings was 5-14% per year, and an additional 181 tests, procedures, and referrals were initiated to investigate these findings. The diagnosis was benign in 109 findings of 124 findings (88%). Fifteen patients with a benign finding underwent an unnecessary invasive procedure. Surveillance imaging identified distant metastases in 20 patients (13%). CONCLUSION: False-positive results and incidental findings occur in at least half of all patients undergoing annual surveillance imaging, and the additional healthcare use is substantial. These findings persist over time. Clinicians need to be aware of these risks and discuss them with patients, alongside the expected benefits of surveillance imaging.
Authors: Ylva Naeser; Hildur Helgadottir; Yvonne Brandberg; Johan Hansson; Roger Olofsson Bagge; Nils O Elander; Christian Ingvar; Karolin Isaksson; Petra Flygare; Cecilia Nilsson; Frida Jakobsson; Olga Del Val Munoz; Antonis Valachis; Malin Jansson; Charlotte Sparring; Lars Ohlsson; Ulf Dyrke; Dimitrios Papantoniou; Anders Sundin; Gustav J Ullenhag Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-12-07 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Mbathio Dieng; Robin M Turner; Sarah J Lord; Andrew J Einstein; Alexander M Menzies; Robyn P M Saw; Omgo E Nieweg; John F Thompson; Rachael L Morton Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ken Kudura; Florentia Dimitriou; Daniela Mihic-Probst; Urs J Muehlematter; Tim Kutzker; Lucas Basler; Robert Förster; Reinhard Dummer; Joanna Mangana; Lars Husmann; Irene A Burger; Michael Christoph Kreissl Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-05-15
Authors: Lars Husmann; Nadia Eberhard; Martin W Huellner; Bruno Ledergerber; Anna Mueller; Hannes Gruenig; Michael Messerli; Carlos-A Mestres; Zoran Rancic; Alexander Zimmermann; Barbara Hasse Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 4.379