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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
IMV (2012) CT market summary report IMID. Des Plaines: IMV
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
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
Salman R, Whitely WN, Warlow C (2007) Screening using whole body magnetic screening: who wants an incidentaloma? J Med Screen 14:2–4
Gore RM, Newmark GM, Thakrar KH, Mehta UK, Berlin JW (2010) Pelvic incidentalomas. Cancer Imaging 10:15–26
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
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
Siddiki H, Fletcher JG, McFarland B, et al. (2008) Incidental findings in CT colonography. J Law Med Ethics 36(2):320
Sierink JC, Saltzherr TP, Russchen MJAM, et al. (2014) Incidental findings on total-body CT scans in trauma patients. Injury 45(5):840–844
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
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
Thompson RJ, Wojcik SM, Grant WD, Ko PY (2011) Incidental findings on CT scans in the emergency department. Emerg Med Int 2011:624847
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
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
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
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
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
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
Schwartz DT (2013) US emergency physicians order too many computed tomography scan—or do they? Ann Emerg Med 62(5):495–497
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
Anagnostis P, Karagiannis A, Tziomalos K, et al. (2009) Adrenal incidentaloma: a diagnostic challenge. Hormones 8(3):163–184
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
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
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
Brenner DJ, Elliston CD (2004) Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology 232:735–738
Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. NEJM 357:2282
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
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
Conflict of interest
All authors declare no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0349-4