Variation in Reporting of Incidental Findings on Initial Lung Cancer Screening and Associations With Clinician Assessment.

Melzer AC, Atoma B, Fabbrini AE, Campbell M, Clothier BA, Fu SS. Variation in Reporting of Incidental Findings on Initial Lung Cancer Screening and Associations With Clinician Assessment. Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR. 2023 Jul 27.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to quantify the distribution, frequency, and clinical significance of incidental findings (IFs) on initial lung cancer screening (LCS) and the association of report characteristics with subsequent assessment. METHODS: Health records of patients undergoing initial LCS from 2015 to 2018 in the Minneapolis VA Health Care System were retrospectively reviewed for demographics, Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System coding, IFs, and subsequent clinical assessment. IFs were considered potentially significant if they were likely to require any follow-up. High-risk significant IFs (SIFs) were potentially malignant. The primary outcome was the SIF being addressed. Outcomes were analyzed using a mixed-effects model. RESULTS: Patients (n  = 901) were primarily male (94.1%) smokers (62.1%) with a mean age of 65.2 years. IFs were extremely common (93.9%), with an average of 2.6 IFs per scan (n  = 2,296). Seven hundred eighty-six IFs (34.2%) were deemed likely SIFs, of which 58 (7.4%) were high risk. Two hundred twenty-two (28.2%) were addressed by clinicians, of which 104 (13.2%) underwent testing. Reporting of SIFs varied among radiologists, with at least one SIF in the impression in 24% to 78% of low-dose CT studies with the S modifier, used to indicate the presence of a SIF, applied to 0% to 51% of reports. In the mutually adjusted model, radiologist recommendation (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 4.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.23-9.76), high-risk finding (adjusted OR, 4.35; 95% CI, 1.81-10.45), and reporting in the impression (adjusted OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.28-5.18) were associated with increased odds of the SIF's being addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists vary in their reporting of IFs on LCS. Further standardization of reporting of SIFs may improve this process, with the simultaneous goals of generating appropriate testing when needed and minimizing low-value care.