Statistics from Altmetric.com
- Computed Tomography Angiography
- Delivery of Health Care
- Health Care Economics and Organizations
- Outcome Assessment, Health Care
- Quality of Health Care
Kelion et al1 report a cross-sectional study of the incidence of non-cardiac incidental findings on 4340 clinically indicated coronary CT angiography (CCTA). The first and most significant finding is that 15.8% of CCTA examinations contained an incidental finding, although 23.6% were previously known (12.1% newly recognised incidental findings). A large proportion of these findings, 43%, were pulmonary nodules or cysts of unclear clinical significance. While these incidentals would not otherwise have been diagnosed by screening criteria, their identification often does impose a burden on patients and medical systems without prognostic benefit.
Second, most incidentals, but not all, could be identified on a cardiac field of view (FOV) image, without a need for a wide FOV reconstruction as per routine at many centres. The authors suggest this finding could support a rationale to more expeditiously evaluate only the cardiac FOV dataset in resource-limited settings, given the added time and cost burden of requiring a radiologist to review the full FOV scan for incidentals. Currently, as Kelion et al have noted, the minimum recommendation for cardiovascular imaging professionals is to evaluate the cardiac FOV for incidentals and wide FOV for patients meeting screening criteria for lung malignancy (age 55–75 years with >35 pack-years smoking history) in accordance with Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT) recommendations for interpretation of CCTA and usual radiographic clinical practice.1
Moreover, these results must be considered in concert with a prior evaluation of 11 654 CCTAs by Kim et al.2 In their study, among 36 patients with lung cancer (0.31%), 4 could be detected on limited cardiac FOV vs 19 seen on wide FOV during cardiac CCTA. Sixteen of these occurred in non-smoking patients. Thus, limited scan review may place patients at clinical risk and place health systems in legal jeopardy from missed diagnoses. …
Contributors EH and VLM—design and manuscript drafting, and final approval of the version to be published.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.