Edinburgh Research Explorer

Impact of detecting potentially serious incidental findings during multi-modal imaging: [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Related Edinburgh Organisations

Open Access permissions

Open

Documents

  • Download as Adobe PDF

    Rights statement: © 2017 Gibson LM . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the , which Copyright: et al Creative Commons Attribution Licence permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

    Final published version, 785 KB, PDF document

https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/2-114/v2
https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/2-114/v1
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)114
JournalWellcome Open Research
Volume2
Early online date2 Aug 2018
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 2 Aug 2018

Abstract

Background: There are limited data on the impact of feedback of incidental findings (IFs) from research imaging. We evaluated the impact of UK Biobank’s protocol for handling potentially serious IFs in a multi-modal imaging study of 100,000 participants (radiographer ‘flagging’ with radiologist confirmation of potentially serious IFs) compared with systematic radiologist review of all images.
Methods: Brain, cardiac and body magnetic resonance, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans from the first 1000 imaged UK Biobank participants were independently assessed for potentially serious IFs using both protocols. We surveyed participants with potentially serious IFs and their GPs up to six months after imaging to determine subsequent clinical assessments, final diagnoses, emotional, financial and work or activity impacts.
Results: Compared to systematic radiologist review, radiographer flagging resulted in substantially fewer participants with potentially serious IFs (179/1000 [17.9%] versus 18/1000 [1.8%]) and a higher proportion with serious final diagnoses (21/179 [11.7%] versus 5/18 [27.8%]). Radiographer flagging missed 16/21 serious final diagnoses (i.e., false negatives), while systematic radiologist review generated large numbers of non-serious final diagnoses (158/179) (i.e., false positives). Almost all (90%) participants had further clinical assessment (including invasive procedures in similar numbers with serious and non-serious final diagnoses [11 and 12 respectively]), with additional impact on emotional wellbeing (16.9%), finances (8.9%), and work or activities (5.6%).
Conclusions: Compared with systematic radiologist review, radiographer flagging missed some serious diagnoses, but avoided adverse impacts for many participants with non-serious diagnoses. While systematic radiologist review may benefit some participants, UK Biobank’s responsibility to avoid both unnecessary harm to larger numbers of participants and burdening of publicly-funded health services suggests that radiographer flagging is a justifiable approach in the UK Biobank imaging study. The potential scale of non-serious final diagnoses raises questions relating to handling IFs in other settings, such as commercial and public health screening.

Download statistics

No data available

ID: 48288452