Cargando…

Whole‐body MRI for preventive health screening: A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND: The yield of whole‐body MRI for preventive health screening is currently not completely clear. PURPOSE: To systematically review the prevalence of whole‐body MRI findings in asymptomatic subjects. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review and meta‐analysis. SUBJECTS: MEDLINE and Embase were searched...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kwee, Robert M., Kwee, Thomas C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6850647/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30932247
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26736
_version_ 1783469471539658752
author Kwee, Robert M.
Kwee, Thomas C.
author_facet Kwee, Robert M.
Kwee, Thomas C.
author_sort Kwee, Robert M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The yield of whole‐body MRI for preventive health screening is currently not completely clear. PURPOSE: To systematically review the prevalence of whole‐body MRI findings in asymptomatic subjects. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review and meta‐analysis. SUBJECTS: MEDLINE and Embase were searched for original studies reporting whole‐body MRI findings in asymptomatic adults without known disease, syndrome, or genetic mutation. Twelve studies, comprising 5373 asymptomatic subjects, were included. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5T or 3.0T, whole‐body MRI. ASSESSMENT: The whole‐body MRI literature findings were extracted and reviewed by two radiologists in consensus for designation as either critical or indeterminate incidental finding. STATISTICAL TESTS: Data were pooled using a random effects model on the assumption that most subjects had ≤1 critical or indeterminate incidental finding. Heterogeneity was assessed by the I (2) statistic. RESULTS: Pooled prevalences of critical and indeterminate incidental findings together and separately were 32.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.3%, 50.1%), 13.4% (95% CI: 9.0%, 19.5%), and 13.9% (95% CI: 5.4%, 31.3%), respectively. There was substantial between‐study heterogeneity (I (2) = 95.6–99.1). Pooled prevalence of critical and indeterminate incidental findings together was significantly higher in studies that included (cardio)vascular and/or colon MRI compared with studies that did not (49.7% [95% CI, 26.7%, 72.9%] vs. 23.0% [95% CI, 5.5%, 60.3%], P < 0.001). Pooled proportion of reported verified critical and indeterminate incidental findings was 12.6% (95% CI: 3.2%, 38.8%). Six studies reported false‐positive findings, yielding a pooled proportion of 16.0% (95% CI: 1.9%, 65.8%). None of the included studies reported long‐term (>5‐year) verification of negative findings. Only one study reported false‐negative findings, with a proportion of 2.0%. DATA CONCLUSION: Prevalence of critical and indeterminate incidental whole‐body MRI findings in asymptomatic subjects is overall substantial and with variability dependent to some degree on the protocol. Verification data are lacking. The proportion of false‐positive findings appears to be substantial. Level of Evidence: 4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1489–1503.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6850647
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68506472019-11-18 Whole‐body MRI for preventive health screening: A systematic review of the literature Kwee, Robert M. Kwee, Thomas C. J Magn Reson Imaging Original Research BACKGROUND: The yield of whole‐body MRI for preventive health screening is currently not completely clear. PURPOSE: To systematically review the prevalence of whole‐body MRI findings in asymptomatic subjects. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review and meta‐analysis. SUBJECTS: MEDLINE and Embase were searched for original studies reporting whole‐body MRI findings in asymptomatic adults without known disease, syndrome, or genetic mutation. Twelve studies, comprising 5373 asymptomatic subjects, were included. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5T or 3.0T, whole‐body MRI. ASSESSMENT: The whole‐body MRI literature findings were extracted and reviewed by two radiologists in consensus for designation as either critical or indeterminate incidental finding. STATISTICAL TESTS: Data were pooled using a random effects model on the assumption that most subjects had ≤1 critical or indeterminate incidental finding. Heterogeneity was assessed by the I (2) statistic. RESULTS: Pooled prevalences of critical and indeterminate incidental findings together and separately were 32.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.3%, 50.1%), 13.4% (95% CI: 9.0%, 19.5%), and 13.9% (95% CI: 5.4%, 31.3%), respectively. There was substantial between‐study heterogeneity (I (2) = 95.6–99.1). Pooled prevalence of critical and indeterminate incidental findings together was significantly higher in studies that included (cardio)vascular and/or colon MRI compared with studies that did not (49.7% [95% CI, 26.7%, 72.9%] vs. 23.0% [95% CI, 5.5%, 60.3%], P < 0.001). Pooled proportion of reported verified critical and indeterminate incidental findings was 12.6% (95% CI: 3.2%, 38.8%). Six studies reported false‐positive findings, yielding a pooled proportion of 16.0% (95% CI: 1.9%, 65.8%). None of the included studies reported long‐term (>5‐year) verification of negative findings. Only one study reported false‐negative findings, with a proportion of 2.0%. DATA CONCLUSION: Prevalence of critical and indeterminate incidental whole‐body MRI findings in asymptomatic subjects is overall substantial and with variability dependent to some degree on the protocol. Verification data are lacking. The proportion of false‐positive findings appears to be substantial. Level of Evidence: 4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1489–1503. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2019-04-01 2019-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6850647/ /pubmed/30932247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26736 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Research
Kwee, Robert M.
Kwee, Thomas C.
Whole‐body MRI for preventive health screening: A systematic review of the literature
title Whole‐body MRI for preventive health screening: A systematic review of the literature
title_full Whole‐body MRI for preventive health screening: A systematic review of the literature
title_fullStr Whole‐body MRI for preventive health screening: A systematic review of the literature
title_full_unstemmed Whole‐body MRI for preventive health screening: A systematic review of the literature
title_short Whole‐body MRI for preventive health screening: A systematic review of the literature
title_sort whole‐body mri for preventive health screening: a systematic review of the literature
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6850647/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30932247
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26736
work_keys_str_mv AT kweerobertm wholebodymriforpreventivehealthscreeningasystematicreviewoftheliterature
AT kweethomasc wholebodymriforpreventivehealthscreeningasystematicreviewoftheliterature