Incidental findings in a referral pathway for non-specific cancer symptoms.

Published on Feb 17, 2021in Clinical Imaging1.109
· DOI :10.1016/J.CLINIMAG.2021.01.042
Andrew G. Murchison6
Estimated H-index: 6
(John Radcliffe Hospital),
Julie-Ann Moreland (John Radcliffe Hospital)+ 0 AuthorsFergus V. Gleeson58
Estimated H-index: 58
(John Radcliffe Hospital)
Abstract Rationale and objectives To determine the prevalence of incidental findings and define the rate and outcomes of further investigations in a referral pathway for patients with non-specific cancer symptoms. Material and methods Incidental findings in each category of a structured report were documented and details of subsequent investigations were obtained from the local PACS and Electronic Patient Record system. Results 1034 patients were included. Of these, 11% were diagnosed with cancer. The majority of patients (95%) had at least one additional finding reported. The majority of these were minor, but in 140 cases (14%), additional findings were considered to be of clinical significance. Further investigations were performed in 330 patients who did not receive a diagnosis of cancer (32%). In 301 patients (29%), further investigations were normal or non-significant. In 75 cases (7%), ongoing surveillance was required. Specialist referral was recommended for 102 patients (10%) who did not receive a diagnosis of cancer. Conclusions In this cohort, there was a high rate of non-significant incidental findings and normal further investigations. However, these risks are likely to be outweighed by the high number of cancer diagnoses and significant non-cancer findings.
#1Dexter P. Mendoza (Harvard University)H-Index: 9
#2Wariya Chintanapakdee (Harvard University)H-Index: 1
Last. Subba R. Digumarthy (Harvard University)H-Index: 38
view all 8 authors...
Background: Incidental findings are frequently encountered during lung cancer screening (LCS). Limited data describe the prevalence of suspected acute infectious and inflammatory lung processes on LCS and how they should be managed. Objective: To determine the prevalence, radiologic reporting and management, and outcome of suspected infectious and inflammatory lung processes identified incidentally during LCS, and to propose a management algorithm. Methods: This retrospective study included 6314...
1 CitationsSource
#1Bernadette Sewell (Swansea University)H-Index: 10
#2Mari Jones (Swansea University)H-Index: 6
Last. Deborah Fitzsimmons (Swansea University)H-Index: 20
view all 8 authors...
Background A pilot rapid diagnosis centre (RDC) allows GPs within targeted clusters to refer adults with vague and/or non-specific symptoms suspicious of cancer, who do not meet criteria for referral under an urgent suspected cancer (USC) pathway, to a multidisciplinary RDC clinic where they are seen within 1 week. Aim To explore the cost-effectiveness of the RDC compared with standard clinical practice. Design and setting Cost-effectiveness modelling using routine data from Neath Port Talbot Ho...
6 CitationsSource
#1Clare PearsonH-Index: 6
#2Veronique Poirier (Cancer Research UK)H-Index: 3
Last. Willie Hamilton (University of Exeter)H-Index: 17
view all 5 authors...
Introduction Patients presenting to primary care with site-specific alarm symptoms can be referred onto urgent suspected cancer pathways, whereas those with non-specific symptoms currently have no dedicated referral routes leading to delays in cancer diagnosis and poorer outcomes. Pilot Multidisciplinary Diagnostic Centres (MDCs) provide a referral route for such patients in England. Objectives This work aimed to use linked primary care and cancer registration data to describe diagnostic pathway...
6 CitationsSource
#1Lorna Gibson (Edin.: University of Edinburgh)H-Index: 32
#2John Nolan (Edin.: University of Edinburgh)H-Index: 2
Last. Cathie Sudlow (Edin.: University of Edinburgh)H-Index: 68
view all 13 authors...
Background Feedback of potentially serious incidental findings (PSIFs) to imaging research participants generates clinical assessment in most cases. Understanding the factors associated with increased risks of PSIFs and of serious final diagnoses may influence individuals’ decisions to participate in imaging research and will inform the design of PSIFs protocols for future research studies. We aimed to determine whether, and to what extent, socio-demographic, lifestyle, other health-related fact...
6 CitationsSource
#1Thomas C. Booth (University of Cambridge)H-Index: 17
5 CitationsSource
#1Jack W. O’Sullivan (University of Oxford)H-Index: 14
#2Tim Muntinga (University of Oxford)H-Index: 2
Last. John P. A. IoannidisH-Index: 204
view all 4 authors...
Abstract Objective To provide an overview of the evidence on prevalence and outcomes of incidental imaging findings. Design Umbrella review of systematic reviews. Data sources Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE up to August 2017; screening of references in included papers. Eligibility criteria Criteria included systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies that gave a prevalence of incidental abnormalities (“incidentalomas”). An incidental imaging finding was defined as an imaging abnor...
77 CitationsSource
#1Alice S ForsterH-Index: 1
#2Cristina RenziH-Index: 13
Last. Georgios LyratzopoulosH-Index: 51
view all 3 authors...
8 CitationsSource
#1Michelle C. Williams (BHF: British Heart Foundation)H-Index: 28
#2Amanda Hunter (BHF: British Heart Foundation)H-Index: 18
Last. Giles Roditi (Glasgow Royal Infirmary)H-Index: 27
view all 13 authors...
Objectives Noncardiac findings are common on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). We assessed the clinical impact of noncardiac findings, and potential changes to surveillance scans with the application of new lung nodule guidelines.
11 CitationsSource
#1Brian D Nicholson (University of Oxford)H-Index: 15
#2Jason Oke (University of Oxford)H-Index: 13
Last. Fergus V. Gleeson (University of Oxford)H-Index: 58
view all 14 authors...
INTRODUCTION: Cancer survival in England lags behind most European countries, due partly to lower rates of early stage diagnosis. We report the protocol for the evaluation of a multidisciplinary diagnostic centre-based pathway for the investigation of 'low-risk but not no-risk' cancer symptoms called the Suspected CANcer (SCAN) pathway. SCAN is a new standard of care being implemented in Oxfordshire; one of a number of pathways implemented during the second wave of the Accelerate, Coordinate, Ev...
22 CitationsSource
#1Rebecca Smith-Bindman (UCSF: University of California, San Francisco)H-Index: 51
11 CitationsSource
Cited By0