Skip to main content
Log in

Incidental findings detected on emergency abdominal CT scans: a 1-year review

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

In recent years, there has been a substantial rise in the use of computed tomography (CT) in the emergency medicine setting. Accordingly, with increased CT usage there has been an upsurge in incidental pathology detection.

Methods

A retrospective review of all emergency CT abdominal scans performed at a university teaching hospital was examined. The frequency of incidental findings, their clinical significance and workload effect for the radiology department was assessed.

Results

1155 patients had an emergency abdominal CT scan of which 700 had incidental findings detected. Of the incidental findings, 143 were deemed indeterminate requiring urgent investigations. Twenty-four occult neoplasms were confirmed subsequently. Additionally, 259 patients were recommended for additional diagnostics. The cumulative effect of the initial emergency abdominal CT was 15,015 relative value units (RVU). Subsequent imaging of incidental findings resulted in another 1674 RVU workload for radiology.

Conclusion

Incidental findings cause considerable debate and concern over which patients require significant follow-up, investigations, and/or surveillance. This exerts significant pressures on sub-specialties for their expert input, with increased workload and implications on healthcare service provision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. IMV (2012) CT market summary report IMID. Des Plaines: IMV

    Google Scholar 

  2. Waqas S, Johnson JO, Salastekar N, Maddu KK, Khosa F (2014) Incidental findings detected on abdomino-pelvic multidetector computed tomography in the acute setting. Am J Emerg Med 32:36–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Flicker MS, Tsoukas AT, Hazra A, Dachman AH (2008) Economic impact of extracolonic findings at computed tomographic colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 32:497–503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Salman R, Whitely WN, Warlow C (2007) Screening using whole body magnetic screening: who wants an incidentaloma? J Med Screen 14:2–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gore RM, Newmark GM, Thakrar KH, Mehta UK, Berlin JW (2010) Pelvic incidentalomas. Cancer Imaging 10:15–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Booth TC, Jackson A, Wardlaw JM, Taylor SA, Waldman AD (2010) Incidental findings found in healthy volunteers during imaging performed for research: current legal and ethical implications. Br J Radiol 83:456–465

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Levine MB, Moore AB, Franck C, Li J, Kuehl DR (2013) Variation in the use of all types of computed tomography by emergency physicians. Am J Emerg Med 21:1437–1442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Siddiki H, Fletcher JG, McFarland B, et al. (2008) Incidental findings in CT colonography. J Law Med Ethics 36(2):320

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sierink JC, Saltzherr TP, Russchen MJAM, et al. (2014) Incidental findings on total-body CT scans in trauma patients. Injury 45(5):840–844

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fleming M, Knox M, Kennedy MJ, Johnston C (2013) Incidental detection of colorectal malignancies using FDG PET-CT. Irish Med J 106(5):151–153

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Messersmith WA, Brown DF, Barry MJ (2001) The prevalence and implications of incidental findings on ED abdominal CT scans. Am J Emerg Med 19:479–481

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Thompson RJ, Wojcik SM, Grant WD, Ko PY (2011) Incidental findings on CT scans in the emergency department. Emerg Med Int 2011:624847

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pitman A, Jones DN, Stuart D, et al. (2009) The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) relative value unit workload model, its limitations and the evolution to a safety, quality and performance framework. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 53(5):450–458

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. MacKersie AB, Lane MJ, Gerhardt RT, et al. (2005) Non-traumatic acute abdominal pain: unenhanced helical CT compared with three-view acute abdominal series. Radiology 237:114–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. van Randen A, Lameris W, van Es HW, et al. (2011) A comparison of the accuracy of ultrasound and computed tomography in common diagnoses causing acute abdominal pain. Eur Radiol 21:1535–1545

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kocher KE, Meurer WJ, Fazel R, et al. (2011) National trends in the use of computed tomography in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 58:452–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kirsch TD, Hsieh YH, Horana L, et al. (2011) Computed tomography scan utilization in emergency departments: a multi-state analysis. J Emerg Med 41:302–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Raja AS, Wright C, Sodickson D, et al. (2010) Negative appendectomy rate in the era of CT: an 18-year perspective. Radiology 256:460–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schwartz DT (2013) US emergency physicians order too many computed tomography scan—or do they? Ann Emerg Med 62(5):495–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Abujudeh HH, Kaewlai R, McMahon PM, et al. (2011) Abdominopelvic CT increases diagnostic certainty and guides management decisions: a prospective investigation of 584 patients in a large academic medical center. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196(2):238–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Anagnostis P, Karagiannis A, Tziomalos K, et al. (2009) Adrenal incidentaloma: a diagnostic challenge. Hormones 8(3):163–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Morin S, Cobbold J, Lim A, et al. (2009) Incidental findings in healthy control research subjects using whole-body MRI. Eur J Radiol 72:529–533

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Berlin L (2003) Potential legal ramifications of whole-body CT screening: taking a peek into Pandora’s box. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:317–322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Maizlin ZV, Bernard SA, Gourlay WA, Brown JA (2007) Economic and ethical impact of extrarenal findings on potential living kidney donor assessment with computed tomography angiography. Transpl Int 20:338–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD (2004) Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology 232:735–738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. NEJM 357:2282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, et al. (2009) Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 169:2071–2077

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Youssef NA, Gordon AJ, Moon TH, et al. (2014) Emergency department patient knowledge, opinions and risk tolerance regarding computed tomography scan radiation. J Emerg Med 46(2):208–214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. E. Kelly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kelly, M.E., Heeney, A., Redmond, C.E. et al. Incidental findings detected on emergency abdominal CT scans: a 1-year review. Abdom Imaging 40, 1853–1857 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0349-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0349-4

Keywords

Navigation