Imperial College London

Professor Paul M. Matthews

Faculty of MedicineDepartment of Medicine

Edmond and Lily Safra Chair and Head of Brain Sciences
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

+44 (0)20 7594 2855p.matthews

 
 
//

Assistant

 

Ms Siobhan Dillon +44 (0)20 7594 2855

 
//

Location

 

E502Burlington DanesHammersmith Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@unpublished{Gibson:2018:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.13181.3,
author = {Gibson, LM and Littlejohns, TJ and Adamska, L and Garratt, S and Doherty, N and Wardlaw, JM and Maskell, G and Parker, M and Brownsword, R and Matthews, PM and Collins, R and Allen, NE and Sellors, J and Sudlow, CLM},
doi = {10.12688/wellcomeopenres.13181.3},
publisher = {F1000 ( Faculty of 1000 Ltd)},
title = {Impact of detecting potentially serious incidental findings during multi-modal imaging},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.13181.3},
year = {2018}
}

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - UNPB
AB - <ns4:p><ns4:bold>Background</ns4:bold>: 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.</ns4:p><ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods</ns4:bold>: 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.</ns4:p><ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results</ns4:bold>: 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%).</ns4:p><ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusions</ns4:bold>: Compared with systematic radiologist review, radiographer flagging missed some serious diagnoses, but avoi
AU - Gibson,LM
AU - Littlejohns,TJ
AU - Adamska,L
AU - Garratt,S
AU - Doherty,N
AU - Wardlaw,JM
AU - Maskell,G
AU - Parker,M
AU - Brownsword,R
AU - Matthews,PM
AU - Collins,R
AU - Allen,NE
AU - Sellors,J
AU - Sudlow,CLM
DO - 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.13181.3
PB - F1000 ( Faculty of 1000 Ltd)
PY - 2018///
TI - Impact of detecting potentially serious incidental findings during multi-modal imaging
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.13181.3
ER -