Advertisement

Abdominal Imaging

, Volume 40, Issue 6, pp 1853–1857 | Cite as

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

  • M. E. Kelly
  • A. Heeney
  • C. E. Redmond
  • J. Costelloe
  • G. J. Nason
  • J. Ryan
  • D. Brophy
  • D. C. Winter
Article

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.

Keywords

Emergency medicine Surgical care Acute surgical management Computed tomography Incidental findings 

Notes

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    IMV (2012) CT market summary report IMID. Des Plaines: IMVGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 32:36–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Flicker MS, Tsoukas AT, Hazra A, Dachman AH (2008) Economic impact of extracolonic findings at computed tomographic colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 32:497–503PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Salman R, Whitely WN, Warlow C (2007) Screening using whole body magnetic screening: who wants an incidentaloma? J Med Screen 14:2–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gore RM, Newmark GM, Thakrar KH, Mehta UK, Berlin JW (2010) Pelvic incidentalomas. Cancer Imaging 10:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 83:456–465PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 21:1437–1442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Siddiki H, Fletcher JG, McFarland B, et al. (2008) Incidental findings in CT colonography. J Law Med Ethics 36(2):320PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sierink JC, Saltzherr TP, Russchen MJAM, et al. (2014) Incidental findings on total-body CT scans in trauma patients. Injury 45(5):840–844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fleming M, Knox M, Kennedy MJ, Johnston C (2013) Incidental detection of colorectal malignancies using FDG PET-CT. Irish Med J 106(5):151–153Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Messersmith WA, Brown DF, Barry MJ (2001) The prevalence and implications of incidental findings on ED abdominal CT scans. Am J Emerg Med 19:479–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thompson RJ, Wojcik SM, Grant WD, Ko PY (2011) Incidental findings on CT scans in the emergency department. Emerg Med Int 2011:624847PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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):450–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 237:114–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 21:1535–1545PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 58:452–462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kirsch TD, Hsieh YH, Horana L, et al. (2011) Computed tomography scan utilization in emergency departments: a multi-state analysis. J Emerg Med 41:302–309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Raja AS, Wright C, Sodickson D, et al. (2010) Negative appendectomy rate in the era of CT: an 18-year perspective. Radiology 256:460–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwartz DT (2013) US emergency physicians order too many computed tomography scan—or do they? Ann Emerg Med 62(5):495–497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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):238–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Anagnostis P, Karagiannis A, Tziomalos K, et al. (2009) Adrenal incidentaloma: a diagnostic challenge. Hormones 8(3):163–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morin S, Cobbold J, Lim A, et al. (2009) Incidental findings in healthy control research subjects using whole-body MRI. Eur J Radiol 72:529–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berlin L (2003) Potential legal ramifications of whole-body CT screening: taking a peek into Pandora’s box. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:317–322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 20:338–342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brenner DJ, Elliston CD (2004) Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology 232:735–738PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. NEJM 357:2282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 169:2071–2077PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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):208–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. E. Kelly
    • 1
  • A. Heeney
    • 1
  • C. E. Redmond
    • 2
  • J. Costelloe
    • 1
  • G. J. Nason
    • 1
  • J. Ryan
    • 3
  • D. Brophy
    • 2
  • D. C. Winter
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of SurgerySt Vincent’s University HospitalDublin 4Ireland
  2. 2.Department of RadiologySt Vincent’s University HospitalDublin 4Ireland
  3. 3.Department of Emergency MedicineSt Vincent’s University HospitalDublin 4Ireland

Personalised recommendations