brand logo

Am Fam Physician. 2018;98(11):682

Clinical Question

What is the likelihood and what are the outcomes of incidental findings on imaging tests?

Bottom Line

The risks of imaging, in addition to radiation exposure, include the identification of incidentalomas, which can lead to patient anxiety, further testing, and overtreatment. There is little research to guide what to do when they pop up on an imaging report (as the famous dodge “clinical correlation needed”). Computed tomography (CT) of the chest (45%), CT colonoscopy (38%), and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (34%) commonly produce incidental findings. The rate of malignancy in incidentalomas was high in breast (42%) and ovary (28%) findings; intermediate in prostatic and colonic (10% to 20%) findings; and low in brain, parotid, and adrenal gland (less than 5%) findings. Although everyone has a story of the lifesaving results of such serendipity, we do not often consider the patients subjected to unneeded testing and treatment, the so-called victims of modern imaging technology—you can figure out the acronym (BMJ. 2003;326:1273). (Level of Evidence = 2a)

Synopsis

These authors searched two databases and reference lists of included papers to identify 20 systematic reviews of observational studies that gave a prevalence of incidental abnormalities (incidentalomas) in patients already being imaged for cancer. Incidentalomas were defined differently across the systematic reviews. CT of the chest resulted in incidentalomas reported in 45% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 36% to 55%). The relatively new CT colonoscopy resulted in incidental findings in 38% of patients (21% to 57%). MRI also reported incidental findings when imaging the spine (22%) and brain (22%). Whole body positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/CT had rates of 2% (95% CI, 1% to 4%). No studies have determined the prevalence of incidentalomas identified via radiography or ultrasonography. Malignancy of incidentalomas were highest with breast findings (42%; 95% CI, 31% to 54%). Renal, thyroid, and ovarian findings were malignant approximately 25% of the time. Extracolonic, prostatic, and colonic incidentalomas were malignant 10% to 20% of the time. Rates of incidentalomas varied substantially among the meta-analyses.

Study design: Systematic review

Funding source: Self-funded or unfunded

Setting: Various (meta-analysis)

Reference: O'SullivanJWMuntingaTGriggSIoannidisJPAPrevalence and outcomes of incidental imaging findings: umbrella review. BMJ2018;361:k2387.

POEMs (patient-oriented evidence that matters) are provided by Essential Evidence Plus, a point-of-care clinical decision support system published by Wiley-Blackwell. For more information, see http://www.essentialevidenceplus.com. Copyright Wiley-Blackwell. Used with permission.

For definitions of levels of evidence used in POEMs, see http://www.essentialevidenceplus.com/product/ebm_loe.cfm?show=oxford.

To subscribe to a free podcast of these and other POEMs that appear in AFP, search in iTunes for “POEM of the Week” or go to http://goo.gl/3niWXb.

This series is coordinated by Sumi Sexton, MD, editor-in-chief.

A collection of POEMs published in AFP is available at https://www.aafp.org/afp/poems.

Continue Reading


More in AFP

More in Pubmed

Copyright © 2018 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.

This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP.  See permissions for copyright questions and/or permission requests.