Incidental findings in youths volunteering for brain MRI research.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MRIs are obtained in research in healthy and clinical populations, and incidental findings have been reported. Most studies have examined adults with variability in parameters of image acquisition and clinical measures available. We conducted a prospective study of youths and documented the frequency and concomitants of incidental findings.
MATERIALS AND
METHODS
Youths (n = 1400) with an age range from 8-23 years were imaged on the same 3T scanner, with a standard acquisition protocol providing 1.0 mm(3) isotropic resolution of anatomic scans. All scans were reviewed by an experienced board-certified neuroradiologist and were categorized into 3 groups: 1) normal: no incidental findings; 2) coincidental: incidental finding(s) were noted, further reviewed with an experienced pediatric neuroradiologist, but were of no clinical significance; 3) incidental findings that on further review were considered to have potential clinical significance and participants were referred for appropriate clinical follow-up.
RESULTS
Overall, 148 incidental findings (10.6% of sample) were noted, and of these, 12 required clinical follow-up. Incidental findings were not related to age. However, whites had a higher incidence of pineal cysts, and males had a higher incidence of cavum septum pellucidum, which was associated with psychosis-related symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS
Incidental findings, moderated by race and sex, occur in approximately one-tenth of participants volunteering for pediatric research, with few requiring follow-up. The incidence supports a 2-tiered approach of neuroradiologic reading and clinical input to determine the potential significance of incidental findings detected on research MR imaging scans.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.