Navigating Uncertainty in the Management of Incidental Findings

The lack of prospective outcomes studies for many types of incidental findings limits our understanding of both their natural history and the potential efficacy of treatment. To support decision making for the management of incidental findings, major sources of uncertainty in management pathways can be mapped and analyzed using mathematical models. This process yields important insights into how uncertainty influences the best treatment decision. Here, we consider a classification scheme, grounded in decision science, which exposes various levels and types of uncertainty in the management of incidental findings and addresses (1) disease-related risks, which are considered in context of a patient’s competing causes of mortality; (2) potential degrees of intervention; (3) strength of evidence; and (4) patients’ treatment-related preferences. Herein we describe how categorizing uncertainty by the sources, issues, and locus can build a framework from which to improve the management of incidental findings. Accurate and comprehensive handling of uncertainty will improve the quality of related decision making and will help guide future research priorities.     

Extraspinal Incidental Findings on Routine MRI of Lumbar Spine: Prevalence and Reporting Rates in 1278 Patients

ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to determine the prevalence and reporting rate of incidental findings (IF) in adult outpatients undergoing lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).ResultsA total of 253 IFs were found in 241 patients (18.8% of 1278). Among these, clinically significant IFs (n = 34) included: 2 renal masses (0.15%), 2 aortic aneurysms (0.15%), 2 cases of hydronephrosis (0.15%), 11 adrenal masses (0.86%), 7 lymphadenopathies (0.55%), 6 cases of endometrial or cervical thickening (0.47%), 1 liver hemangioma (0.08%), 1 pelvic fluid (0.08%) and 2 ovarian dermoid cysts (0.15%). Overall, 28% (71/253) of IFs were included in the clinical reports, while clinically significant findings were reported in 41% (14/34) of cases.ConclusionExtraspinal IFs are commonly detected during a routine lumbar MRI, and many of these findings are not clinically significant. However, IFs including clinically important findings are occasionally omitted from formal radiological reports.     

Managing Incidental Findings on Thoracic CT: Lung Findings. A White Paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee

The ACR Incidental Findings Committee presents recommendations for managing incidentally detected lung findings on thoracic CT. The Chest Subcommittee is composed of thoracic radiologists who endorsed and developed the provided guidance. These recommendations represent a combination of current published evidence and expert opinion and were finalized by informal iterative consensus. The recommendations address commonly encountered incidental findings in the lungs and are not intended to be a comprehensive review of all pulmonary incidental findings. The goal is to improve the quality of care by providing guidance on management of incidentally detected thoracic findings.     

Process Improvement for Communication and Follow-up of Incidental Lung Nodules

ObjectiveGuideline-concordant follow-up of incidental lung nodules (ILNs) is suboptimal. We aimed to improve communication and tracking for follow-up of these common incidental findings detected on imaging examinations.MethodsWe implemented a process improvement program for reporting and tracking ILNs at a large urban academic health care system. A multidisciplinary committee designed, tested, and implemented a multipart tracking system in the electronic health record (EHR) that included Fleischner Society management recommendations for each patient. Plan-do-study-act cycles addressed gaps in the follow-up of ILNs, broken into phases of developing and testing components of the conceived EHR toolkit.ResultsThe program resulted in standardized text macros with discrete categories and recommendations for ILNs, with ability to track each case in a work list within the EHR. The macros incorporated evidence-based guidelines and also input of collaborating clinical referrers in the respective specialty. The ILN macro was used 3,964 times over the first 2 years, increasing from 104 to over 300 uses per month. Usage spread across all subspecialty divisions, with nonthoracic radiologists currently accounting for 80% (56 of 70) of the radiologists using the system and 31% (1,230 of 3,964) of all captured ILNs. When radiologists indicated ILNs as warranting telephone communication to provider offices, completion was documented in 100% of the cases captured in the EHR-embedded tracking report.ConclusionAn EHR-based system for managing incidental nodules enables case tracking with exact recommendations, provider communication, and completion of follow-up testing. Future efforts will target consistent radiologist use of the system and follow-up completion.     

Managing Incidental Findings on Thoracic CT: Mediastinal and Cardiovascular Findings. A White Paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee

The ACR Incidental Findings Committee presents recommendations for managing incidentally detected mediastinal and cardiovascular findings found on CT. The Chest Subcommittee was composed of thoracic radiologists who developed the provided guidance. These recommendations represent a combination of current published evidence and expert opinion and were finalized by informal iterative consensus. The recommendations address the most commonly encountered mediastinal and cardiovascular incidental findings and are not intended to be a comprehensive review of all incidental findings associated with these compartments. Our goal is to improve the quality of care by providing guidance on how to manage incidentally detected thoracic findings.     

Incidental lung nodules on CT examinations of the abdomen: Prevalence and reporting rates in the PACS era

Objectives

To retrospectively evaluate prevalence, reporting rates and clinical implications of incidental pulmonary nodules detected in multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) abdominal studies.

Materials and methods

Abdominal MDCT studies of 243 consecutive patients, 94 of whom had a history of cancer, were evaluated. Lung bases included in the scan were reviewed on a PACS workstation with different window settings and post-processing techniques. Nodules were classified according to their density (calcified, solid noncalcified, non-solid, part-solid) and size (<4 mm; 4-6 mm; 6-8 mm; >8 mm). The study findings were compared with the corresponding radiologic reports. Previous of following CT studies, when available from the PACS, were also reviewed to evaluate changes in number and size of the detected nodules.

Results

An average of 8.2 cm of lung parenchyma was imaged in each patient. 213 noncalcified nodules (NCNs) were identified in 95 patients (39.1%) but only 8 patients (8.4%) had it mentioned in the final report. Comparison CT studies were available for 44 out of the 95 positive patients showing disappearance of the nodules in 2 cases, no interval change in 26 and progression in size and/or number in 16 patients, in whom a final diagnosis of metastasis or primary lung cancers was achieved.

Conclusion

Radiologists tend to overlook lung portions on abdominal CT studies. Underreporting may affect patient care and have medico-legal implications since images are permanently stored in digital format on PACS and CD-ROMs. Management of the discovered nodules should be tailored to the clinical situation of the patient, and particular care should be reserved to patients with oncologic history.     

Facilitating Surveillance of Incidental Findings Using a Novel Reporting Template: Proof of Concept in Patients With Pancreatic Abnormalities

ObjectiveTo determine the surveillance impact of utilizing a discrete field in structured radiology reports in patients with incidental pancreatic findings.MethodsWe implemented a dictation template containing a discrete structured field element to auto-trigger listing of patients with incidental pancreatic findings on a pancreas clinic registry in the electronic health record. We isolated CT and MRI reports with incidental pancreatic findings over a 24-month period. We stratified patients by presence or absence of the discrete field element in reports (flagged versus unflagged) and evaluated the impact of report flagging on likelihood of clinic follow-up, follow-up imaging, endoscopic ultrasound, surgical intervention, genetics referral, obtaining pathologic diagnosis, and time interval between index imaging to various outcomes.ResultsPatients with flagged reports were more likely to be seen or discussed in a pancreas clinic compared with those with unflagged reports (189 of 376, 50.3% versus 79 of 474, 16.7%; P <. 001). Patients with flagged reports were more likely to get follow-up imaging than patients with unflagged reports (188 of 376, 50.0% versus 121 of 474, 25.5%; P < .001) and were more likely to undergo appropriate management of actionable findings compared with patients in the unflagged group (23 of 62, 37.1% versus 28 of 129, 21.7%; P = .036).DiscussionImplementation of a structured discrete field element for reporting of patients with incidental pancreatic findings had positive impact on surveillance measures and can be applied in other organ systems with established surveillance guidelines to standardize patient care.     

Managing Incidental Thyroid Nodules Detected on Imaging: White Paper of the ACR Incidental Thyroid Findings Committee

The incidental thyroid nodule (ITN) is one of the most common incidental findings on imaging studies that include the neck. An ITN is defined as a nodule not previously detected or suspected clinically, but identified by an imaging study. The workup of ITNs has led to increased costs from additional procedures, and in some cases, to increased risk to the patient because physicians are naturally concerned about the risk of malignancy and a delayed cancer diagnosis. However, the majority of ITNs are benign, and small, incidental thyroid malignancies typically have indolent behavior. The ACR formed the Incidental Thyroid Findings Committee to derive a practical approach to managing ITNs on CT, MRI, nuclear medicine, and ultrasound studies. This white paper describes consensus recommendations representing this committee’s review of the literature and their practice experience.     

Incidence and Economic Impact of Incidental Findings on 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging

Purpose

The study sought to determine the incidence of incidental findings on whole-body positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging and the average costs of investigations to follow-up or further characterize incidental findings.

Management of the Incidental Renal Mass on CT: A White Paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee

The ACR Incidental Findings Committee (IFC) presents recommendations for renal masses that are incidentally detected on CT. These recommendations represent an update from the renal component of the JACR 2010 white paper on managing incidental findings in the adrenal glands, kidneys, liver, and pancreas. The Renal Subcommittee, consisting of six abdominal radiologists and one urologist, developed this algorithm. The recommendations draw from published evidence and expert opinion and were finalized by informal iterative consensus. Each flowchart within the algorithm describes imaging features that identify when there is a need for additional imaging, surveillance, or referral for management. Our goal is to improve quality of care by providing guidance for managing incidentally detected renal masses.     

Detection of Cardiac Incidental Findings on Routine Chest CT: The Impact of Dedicated Training in Cardiac Imaging

PurposeRoutine chest CT and cardiac CT angiography (CTA) both image the heart, albeit with different precision and intent. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic ability of radiologists with different levels of cardiac training to identify cardiac findings on chest CT without electrocardiographic gating compared with a reference standard of electrocardiographically gated cardiac CTA.MethodsElectrocardiographically gated cardiac CT angiographic studies performed between January 2005 to January 2010 in patients with routine chest CT within six months were retrospectively identified. Fourteen radiologists at four stages of training (stage 1, residents with no cardiac training [n = 4]; stage 2, residents who had completed at least one dedicated rotation of cardiac imaging [n = 3]; stage 3, radiologists without cardiac training [n = 3]; and stage 4, radiologists with formal cardiac fellowship training [n = 4]) performed blinded, anonymized cardiac readings of chest CT images. Findings were categorized (coronary arterial, noncoronary vessel, cardiac chamber, myocardial, pericardial, and valve findings) with cardiac CTA as a reference standard.ResultsOverall, 140 cardiac CT angiographic findings were reported in 63 of 77 patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of nongated CTA were 43.6%, 96.8%, 83.0%, 81.6%, and 81.8%, respectively, for all readers. Increasing training was associated with higher sensitivity (30.3%, 35.7%, 45.7%, and 61.2% from stages 1 to 4) but similar specificity (96.4%, 96.7%, 96.3%, and 97.6% from stages 1 to 4). Frequently missed findings categories were coronary arterial, myocardial, and cardiac chamber findings.ConclusionsIncreasing cardiac imaging training correlates with increased sensitivity and stable specificity to detect cardiac findings on routine chest CT without electrocardiographic gating. Cardiac findings should be noted on chest CT when observed, and cardiac training should be encouraged.     

Management of Incidental Adnexal Findings on CT and MRI: A White Paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee

The ACR Incidental Findings Committee (IFC) presents recommendations for managing adnexal masses incidentally detected on CT and MRI. These recommendations represent an update of those provided in our previous JACR 2013 white paper. The Adnexal Subcommittee, which included six radiologists with subspecialty expertise in abdominal imaging or ultrasound and one gynecologist, developed this algorithm. The recommendations draw from published evidence and expert opinion and were finalized by iterative consensus. Algorithm branches successively categorize adnexal masses based on patient characteristics (eg, pre- versus postmenopausal) and imaging features. They terminate with a management recommendation. The algorithm addresses most, but not all, pathologies and clinical scenarios. Our goal is to improve quality of care by providing guidance on how to manage incidentally detected adnexal masses.     

Historic Physician Quality and Reporting System Reporting by Radiologists: A Wake-up Call to Avoid Penalties Under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA)

PurposeThe Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) Quality performance category is the successor to the Physician Quality and Reporting System (PQRS) program and now contributes to physicians’ income adjustments based upon performance rates calculated for a minimum of six measures. We assess radiologists’ frequency of reporting PQRS measures as a marker of preparedness for MACRA.MethodsMedicare-participating radiologists were randomly searched through the Physician Compare website until identifying 1,000 radiologists who reported at least one PQRS measure. Associations were explored between the number of reported measures and radiologist characteristics.ResultsFor PQRS-reporting radiologists, the number of reported PQRS measures was 1 (25.2%), 2 (27.3%), 3 (18.2%), 4 (19.3%), 5 (8.3%), and 6 (1.7%). The most commonly reported measures were “documenting radiation exposure time for procedures using fluoroscopy” (64.3%) and “accurate measurement of carotid artery narrowing” (56.8%). Reporting at least two measures was significantly (P < .001) more likely for nonacademic (77.3%) versus academic (44.9%) radiologists, generalists (82.7%) versus subspecialists (59.1%), and radiologists in smaller (≤9 members) (84.7%) versus larger (≥100 members) (39.7%) practices. Reporting six measures was significantly (P < .05) more likely for generalists (2.6%) versus subspecialists (0.4%).ConclusionMost PQRS-reporting radiologists reported only one or two measures, well below MACRA’s requirement of six. Radiologists continuing such reporting levels will likely be disadvantaged in terms of potential payment adjustments under MACRA. Lower reporting rates for academic and subspecialized radiologists, as well as those in larger practices, may relate to such radiologists’ reliance on their hospitals or networks for PQRS reporting. Qualified clinical data registries should be embraced to facilitate more robust measure reporting.