Dataset Information

A Randomized Study of Patient Risk Perception for Incidental Renal Findings on Diagnostic Imaging Tests.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study is to assess differences in patient distress, risk perception, and treatment preferences for incidental renal findings with descriptive versus combined descriptive and numeric graphical risk information. MATERIALS AND METHODS:A randomized survey study was conducted for adult patients about to undergo outpatient imaging studies at a large urban academic institution. Two survey arms contained either descriptive or a combination of descriptive and numeric graphical risk information about three hypothetical incidental renal findings at CT: 2-cm (low risk) and 5-cm (high risk) renal tumors and a 2-cm (low risk) renal artery aneurysm. The main outcomes were patient distress, perceived risk (qualitative and quantitative), treatment preference, and valuation of lesion discovery. RESULTS:Of 374 patients, 299 participated (79.9% response rate). With inclusion of numeric and graphical, rather than only descriptive, risk information about disease progression for a 2-cm renal tumor, patients reported less worry (3.56 vs 4.12 on a 5-point scale; p < 0.001) and favored surgical consultation less often (29.3% vs 46.9%; p = 0.003). The proportion choosing surgical consultation for the 2-cm renal tumor decreased to a similar level as for the renal artery aneurysm with numeric risk information (29.3% [95% CI, 21.7-36.8%] and 27.9% [95% CI, 20.5-35.3%], respectively). Patients overestimated the absolute risk of adverse events regardless of risk information type, but significantly more so when given descriptive information only, and valued the discovery of lesions regardless of risk information type (range, 4.41-4.81 on a 5-point scale). CONCLUSION:Numeric graphical risk communication for patients about incidental renal lesions may facilitate accurate risk comprehension and support patients in informed decision making.

SUBMITTER: Kang SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5876026 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Randomized Study of Patient Risk Perception for Incidental Renal Findings on Diagnostic Imaging Tests.

Kang Stella K SK Scherer Laura D LD Megibow Alec J AJ Higuita Leslie J LJ Kim Nathanael N Braithwaite R Scott RS Fagerlin Angela A

AJR. American journal of roentgenology 20171115 2

<h4>Objective</h4>The purpose of this study is to assess differences in patient distress, risk perception, and treatment preferences for incidental renal findings with descriptive versus combined descriptive and numeric graphical risk information.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A randomized survey study was conducted for adult patients about to undergo outpatient imaging studies at a large urban academic institution. Two survey arms contained either descriptive or a combination of descriptive and ...[more]

PMID: 29140116

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo provide an overview of the evidence on prevalence and outcomes of incidental imaging findings.DesignUmbrella review of systematic reviews.Data sourcesSearches of MEDLINE, EMBASE up to August 2017; screening of references in included papers.Eligibility criteriaCriteria 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 abnormality in a healthy, asymptomatic patient or an imaging abnormality in a symptomatic patient, where the abnormality was not apparently related to the patient's symptoms. Primary studies that measured the prevalence of incidentalomas in patients with a history of malignancy were also considered in sensitivity analyses.Results20 systematic reviews (240 primary studies) were identified from 7098 references from the database search. Fifteen systematic reviews provided data to quantify the prevalence of incidentalomas, whereas 18 provided data to quantify the outcomes of incidentalomas (13 provided both). The prevalence of incidentalomas varied substantially between imaging tests; it was less than 5% for chest computed tomography for incidental pulmonary embolism in patients with and without cancer and whole body positron emission tomography (PET) or PET/computed tomography (for patients with and without cancer). Conversely, incidentalomas occurred in more than a third of images in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), chest computed tomography (for incidentalomas of thorax, abdomen, spine, or heart), and computed tomography colonoscopy (for extra-colonic incidentalomas). Intermediate rates occurred with MRI of the spine (22%) and brain (22%). The rate of malignancy in incidentalomas varied substantially between organs; the prevalence of malignancy was less than 5% in incidentalomas of the brain, parotid, and adrenal gland. Extra-colonic, prostatic, and colonic incidentalomas were malignant between 10% and 20% of the time, whereas renal, thyroid, and ovarian incidentalomas were malignant around a quarter of the time. Breast incidentalomas had the highest percentage of malignancy (42%, 95% confidence interval 31% to 54%). Many assessments had high between-study heterogeneity (15 of 20 meta-analyses with I2 >50%).ConclusionsThere is large variability across different imaging techniques both in the prevalence of incidentalomas and in the prevalence of malignancy for specific organs. This umbrella review will aid clinicians and patients weigh up the pros and cons of requesting imaging scans and will help with management decisions after an incidentaloma diagnosis. Our results can underpin the creation of guidelines to assist these decisions.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO: CRD42017075679.

Project description:ImportanceIncidental findings (IFs) are unexpected abnormalities discovered during imaging and can range from normal anatomic variants to findings requiring urgent medical intervention. In the case of brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), reliable data about the prevalence and significance of IFs in the general population are limited, making it difficult to anticipate, communicate, and manage these findings.ObjectivesTo determine the overall prevalence of IFs in brain MRI in the nonclinical pediatric population as well as the rates of specific findings and findings for which clinical referral is recommended.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study was based on the April 2019 release of baseline data from 11 810 children aged 9 to 10 years who were enrolled and completed baseline neuroimaging in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study, the largest US population-based longitudinal observational study of brain development and child health, between September 1, 2016, and November 15, 2018. Participants were enrolled at 21 sites across the US designed to mirror the demographic characteristics of the US population. Baseline structural MRIs were centrally reviewed for IFs by board-certified neuroradiologists and findings were described and categorized (category 1, no abnormal findings; 2, no referral recommended; 3; consider referral; and 4, consider immediate referral). Children were enrolled through a broad school-based recruitment process in which all children of eligible age at selected schools were invited to participate. Exclusion criteria were severe sensory, intellectual, medical, or neurologic disorders that would preclude or interfere with study participation. During the enrollment process, demographic data were monitored to ensure that the study met targets for sex, socioeconomic, ethnic, and racial diversity. Data were analyzed from March 15, 2018, to November 20, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresPercentage of children with IFs in each category and prevalence of specific IFs.ResultsA total of 11 679 children (52.1% boys, mean [SD] age, 9.9 [0.62] years) had interpretable baseline structural MRI results. Of these, 2464 participants (21.1%) had IFs, including 2013 children (17.2%) assigned to category 2, 431 (3.7%) assigned to category 3, and 20 (0.2%) assigned to category 4. Overall rates of IFs did not differ significantly between singleton and twin gestations or between monozygotic and dizygotic twins, but heritability analysis showed heritability for the presence or absence of IFs (h2 = 0.260; 95% CI, 0.135-0.387).Conclusions and relevanceIncidental findings in brain MRI and findings with potential clinical significance are both common in the general pediatric population. By assessing IFs and concurrent developmental and health measures and following these findings over the longitudinal study course, the ABCD study has the potential to determine the significance of many common IFs.

Project description: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.

Dataset Information

A Randomized Study of Patient Risk Perception for Incidental Renal Findings on Diagnostic Imaging Tests.

Publications

A Randomized Study of Patient Risk Perception for Incidental Renal Findings on Diagnostic Imaging Tests.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets