Cargando…

Incidental findings on 3 T neuroimaging: cross-sectional observations from the population-based Rhineland Study

PURPOSE: Development of best practices for dealing with incidental findings on neuroimaging requires insight in their frequency and clinical relevance. METHODS: Here, we delineate prevalence estimates with 95% confidence intervals and clinical management of incidental findings, based on the first 35...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lohner, Valerie, Lu, Ran, Enkirch, Simon J., Stöcker, Tony, Hattingen, Elke, Breteler, Monique M. B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8850254/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34842946
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00234-021-02852-2
_version_ 1784652554428219392
author Lohner, Valerie
Lu, Ran
Enkirch, Simon J.
Stöcker, Tony
Hattingen, Elke
Breteler, Monique M. B.
author_facet Lohner, Valerie
Lu, Ran
Enkirch, Simon J.
Stöcker, Tony
Hattingen, Elke
Breteler, Monique M. B.
author_sort Lohner, Valerie
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Development of best practices for dealing with incidental findings on neuroimaging requires insight in their frequency and clinical relevance. METHODS: Here, we delineate prevalence estimates with 95% confidence intervals and clinical management of incidental findings, based on the first 3589 participants of the population-based Rhineland Study (age range 30–95 years) who underwent 3 Tesla structural neuroimaging (3D, 0.8 mm(3) isotropic resolution). Two trained raters independently assessed all scans for abnormalities, with confirmation and adjudication where needed by neuroradiologists. Participants were referred for diagnostic work-up depending on the potential benefit. RESULTS: Of 3589 participants (mean age 55 ± 14 years, 2072 women), 867 had at least one possible incidental finding (24.2%). Most common were pituitary abnormalities (12.3%), arachnoid cysts (4.1%), developmental venous anomalies (2.5%), non-acute infarcts (1.8%), cavernomas (1.0%), and meningiomas (0.7%). Forty-six participants were informed about their findings, which was hitherto unknown in 40 of them (1.1%). Of these, in 19 participants (48%), a wait-and-see policy was applied and nine (23%) received treatment, while lesions in the remainder were benign, could not be confirmed, or the participant refused to inform us about their clinical diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Nearly one-quarter of participants had an incidental finding, but only 5% of those required referral, that mostly remained without direct clinical consequences.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8850254
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88502542022-02-23 Incidental findings on 3 T neuroimaging: cross-sectional observations from the population-based Rhineland Study Lohner, Valerie Lu, Ran Enkirch, Simon J. Stöcker, Tony Hattingen, Elke Breteler, Monique M. B. Neuroradiology Diagnostic Neuroradiology PURPOSE: Development of best practices for dealing with incidental findings on neuroimaging requires insight in their frequency and clinical relevance. METHODS: Here, we delineate prevalence estimates with 95% confidence intervals and clinical management of incidental findings, based on the first 3589 participants of the population-based Rhineland Study (age range 30–95 years) who underwent 3 Tesla structural neuroimaging (3D, 0.8 mm(3) isotropic resolution). Two trained raters independently assessed all scans for abnormalities, with confirmation and adjudication where needed by neuroradiologists. Participants were referred for diagnostic work-up depending on the potential benefit. RESULTS: Of 3589 participants (mean age 55 ± 14 years, 2072 women), 867 had at least one possible incidental finding (24.2%). Most common were pituitary abnormalities (12.3%), arachnoid cysts (4.1%), developmental venous anomalies (2.5%), non-acute infarcts (1.8%), cavernomas (1.0%), and meningiomas (0.7%). Forty-six participants were informed about their findings, which was hitherto unknown in 40 of them (1.1%). Of these, in 19 participants (48%), a wait-and-see policy was applied and nine (23%) received treatment, while lesions in the remainder were benign, could not be confirmed, or the participant refused to inform us about their clinical diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Nearly one-quarter of participants had an incidental finding, but only 5% of those required referral, that mostly remained without direct clinical consequences. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-11-29 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8850254/ /pubmed/34842946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00234-021-02852-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2021, corrected publication 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Diagnostic Neuroradiology
Lohner, Valerie
Lu, Ran
Enkirch, Simon J.
Stöcker, Tony
Hattingen, Elke
Breteler, Monique M. B.
Incidental findings on 3 T neuroimaging: cross-sectional observations from the population-based Rhineland Study
title Incidental findings on 3 T neuroimaging: cross-sectional observations from the population-based Rhineland Study
title_full Incidental findings on 3 T neuroimaging: cross-sectional observations from the population-based Rhineland Study
title_fullStr Incidental findings on 3 T neuroimaging: cross-sectional observations from the population-based Rhineland Study
title_full_unstemmed Incidental findings on 3 T neuroimaging: cross-sectional observations from the population-based Rhineland Study
title_short Incidental findings on 3 T neuroimaging: cross-sectional observations from the population-based Rhineland Study
title_sort incidental findings on 3 t neuroimaging: cross-sectional observations from the population-based rhineland study
topic Diagnostic Neuroradiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8850254/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34842946
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00234-021-02852-2
work_keys_str_mv AT lohnervalerie incidentalfindingson3tneuroimagingcrosssectionalobservationsfromthepopulationbasedrhinelandstudy
AT luran incidentalfindingson3tneuroimagingcrosssectionalobservationsfromthepopulationbasedrhinelandstudy
AT enkirchsimonj incidentalfindingson3tneuroimagingcrosssectionalobservationsfromthepopulationbasedrhinelandstudy
AT stockertony incidentalfindingson3tneuroimagingcrosssectionalobservationsfromthepopulationbasedrhinelandstudy
AT hattingenelke incidentalfindingson3tneuroimagingcrosssectionalobservationsfromthepopulationbasedrhinelandstudy
AT bretelermoniquemb incidentalfindingson3tneuroimagingcrosssectionalobservationsfromthepopulationbasedrhinelandstudy