Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Whole-body computed tomography: a new point of view in a hospital check-up unit? Our experience in 6516 patients

  • ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

There is a growing awareness that prevention and early diagnosis may reduce the high mortality associated with cancer, cardiovascular and other diseases. The role of whole-body computed tomography (WB-CT) in self-referred and asymptomatic patients has been debated.

Aim

To determine frequency and spectrum of WB-CT findings in average-risk subjects derived from a Medical-Check-Up-Unit, to evaluate recommendations reported and distribution according to sex and age-groups.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed 6516 subjects who underwent WB-CT (June 2004/February 2015). All were > 40 years and referred by Medical-Check-Up-Unit of our hospital. The main findings were categorized and classified as normal or not. Its distribution according to sex and age-groups was evaluated using Chi-square test and linear-by-linear association test, respectively. Number of recommendations, type and interval of follow-up were recorded. Descriptive statistics were used.

Results

WB-CT performed in 6516 patients (69% men, 31% women, mean age = 58.4 years) revealed chest (81.4%), abdominal (93.06%) and spine (65.39%) abnormalities. Only 1.60% had completely normal exploration. Abnormal WB-CT in men was significantly higher than women (98.64% vs. 97.87%; p = 0.021), with significant increase as age was higher (40–49 years: 95.65%; 50–59 years: 98.33%; 60–69 years: 99.47%; > 69 years: 99.89%) (p < 0.001). Although most findings were benign, we detected 1.47% primary tumors (96, mainly 35 kidneys and 15 lungs). 17.39% of patients received at least one recommendation predominantly in chest (78.19%) and follow-up imaging (69.89%).

Conclusion

The most common WB-CT findings in asymptomatic subjects are benign. However, this examination allows identifying an important number of relevant and precocious findings that significantly increase with age, involving changes in lifestyle and precocious treatment.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Albert JM (2013) Radiation risk from CT: implications for cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:W81–W87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lanni TB Jr, Stevens C, Farah M, Boyer A, Davis J, Welsh R et al (2018) Early results from the implementation of a lung cancer screening program: the Beaumont Health System experience. Am J Clin Oncol 41:218–222

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD et al (2011) Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 365:395–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sharma D, Newman TG, Aronow WS (2015) Lung cancer screening: history, current perspectives, and future directions. Arch Med Sci 11:1033–1043

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Henschke CI (2016) International early lung cancer action program: screening protocol. http://www.IELCAP.org/. Accessed 1 July 2016

  6. Han D, Lee JH, Hartaigh BÓ, Min JK (2016) Role of computed tomography screening for detection of coronary artery disease. Clin Imaging 40:307–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Palacio D, Betancourt S, Gladish GW (2015) Screening for coronary heart disease in asymptomatic patients using multidetector computed tomography: calcium scoring and coronary computed tomography angiography. Semin Roentgenol 50:111–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rumberger JA, Brundage BH, Rader DJ, Kondos G (1999) Electron beam computed tomographic coronary calcium scanning: a review and guidelines for use in asymptomatic persons. Mayo Clin Proc 74:243–252

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Halligan S, Marmo R (2011) Colorectal cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection—systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 259:393–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Patel JD, Chang KJ (2016) The role of virtual colonoscopy in colorectal screening. Clin Imaging 40:315–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yee J, Kim DH, Rosen MP et al (2014) ACR appropriateness criteria colorectal cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol 11:543–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brant-Zawadzki M (2002) CT screening: why I do it. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:319–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Baker SR, Abdominal CT (2003) Screening: inflated promises. Serious concerns. AJR Am J Roenthenol 180:27–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rogers LF, Whole-Body CT (2002) Screening: edging toward commerce. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Herman CR, Gill HK, Eng J, Fajardo LL (2002) Screening for preclinical disease: test and disease characteristics. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:825–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fenton JJ, Deyo RA (2003) Patient self-referral for radiologic screening tests: clinical and ethical concerns. J Am Board Fam Pract 16:494–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Modic MT, Obuchowski N (2004) Whole-body CT screening for cancer and coronary disease: does it pass the test? Cleve Clin J Med 71:47–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Berland LL, Berland NW (2003) Whole-body computed tomography screening. Semin Roentgenol 38:65–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA (2010) Multisection CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology 257:158–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Furtado CD, Aguirre DA, Sirlin CB et al (2005) Whole-body CT screening: spectrum of findings and recommendations in 1192 patients. Radiology 237:385–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Obuchowski N, Modic MT (2006) Total body screening: predicting actionable findings. Acad Radiol 13:480–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Spouge AR, Wilson SR, Wooley B (1996) Abdominal sonography in asymptomatic executives: prevalence of pathologic findings, potential benefits, and problems. J Ultrasound Med 15:763–767

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Haliloglu AH, Gulpinar O, Ozden E, Beduk Y (2011) Urinary ultrasonography in screening incidental renal cell carcinoma: is it obligatory? Int Urol Nephrol 43:687–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. McCollough CH, Guimarães L, Fletcher JG (2009) In defense of body CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:28–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Doss M (2014) Radiation doses from radiological imaging do not increase the risk of cancer. Br J Radiol 87:20140085

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ozasa K, Shimizu Y, Suyama A et al (2012) Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors, report 14, 1950–2003: an overview of cancer and noncancer diseases. Radiat Res 177:229–243

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Zablotska LB, Lane RS, Thompson PA (2014) A reanalysis of cancer mortality in Canadian nuclear workers (1956–1994) based on revised exposure and cohort data. Br J Cancer 110:214–223

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Amis ES Jr, Butler PF, Applegate KE et al (2007) American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. J Am Coll Radiol 4:272–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rehani MM (2015) What makes and keeps radiation risks associated with CT a hot topic? AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:W234–W235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Salerno S, Laghi A, Cantone MC, Sartori P, Pinto A, Frija G (2019) Overdiagnosis and overimaging: an ethical issue for radiological protection. Radiol Med. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-019-01029-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Beinfeld MT, Wittenberg E, Gazelle GS (2005) Cost-effectiveness of whole-body CT screening. Radiology 234:415–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mazzei MA, Guerrini S, Gentili F et al (2017) Incidental extravascular findings in computed tomographic angiography for planning or monitoring endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: smoker patients, increased lung cancer prevalence? World J Radiol 9:304–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lumbreras B, Donat L, Hernández-Aguado I (2010) Incidental findings in imaging diagnostic tests: a systematic review. Br J Radiol 83:276–289

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Hegenscheid K, Seipel R, Schmidt CO et al (2013) Potentially relevant incidental findings on research whole-body MRI in the general adult population: frequencies and management. Eur Radiol 23:816–826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schaarschmidt BM, Grueneisen J, Heusch P et al (2015) Does 18F-FDG PET/MRI reduce the number of indeterminate abdominal incidentalomas compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT? Nucl Med Commun 36:588–595

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Hanna TN, Shekhani H, Zygmont ME, Kerchberger JM, Johnson JO (2016) Incidental findings in emergency imaging: frequency, recommendations, and compliance with consensus guidelines. Emerg Radiol 23:169–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mazzei MA, Volterrani L (2015) Errors in multidetector row computed tomography. Radiol Med 120:785–794

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Squillaci E, Bolacchi F, Ricci F et al (2019) Radiologists’ recommendations for additional imaging (RAI) in the inpatient setting. Radiol Med 124:432–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Laghi A et al (2009) Impact of whole-body CT screening on the cost-effectiveness of CT colonography. Radiology 251:156–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Maite Millor

    Present address: Hospital Reina Sofía de Tudela, Carr. de Tarazona, Km. 3, 31500, Tudela, Navarra, Spain

  2. Maria José Pons

    Present address: Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Calle de Irunlarrea 3, 31008, Pamplona, Navarra, Spain

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Av. Pio XII, 36, 31008, Pamplona, Navarra, Spain

    Maite Millor, Pablo Bartolomé, Maria José Pons, Gorka Bastarrika, David Cano, Ignacio González & Isabel Vivas

  2. Medical Check-Up Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Av. Pio XII, 36, 31008, Pamplona, Navarra, Spain

    Óscar Beloqui

Authors
  1. Maite Millor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pablo Bartolomé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria José Pons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gorka Bastarrika
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Óscar Beloqui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David Cano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ignacio González
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Isabel Vivas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maite Millor.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Millor, M., Bartolomé, P., Pons, M.J. et al. Whole-body computed tomography: a new point of view in a hospital check-up unit? Our experience in 6516 patients. Radiol med 124, 1199–1211 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-019-01068-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-019-01068-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation