Incidental findings in research: A focus group study about the perspective of the research participant

Returning Incidental Research Findings From 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography to Participants: A Survey of Investigators From a Clinical Trial of Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

There are limited data on researchers' attitudes and beliefs on returning and managing incidental research findings from whole body 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) imaging.

METHODS

Site principal investigators (PIs) who enrolled participants for the Treatments Against Rheumatoid Arthritis and Effect on FDG PET/CT (TARGET) trial were surveyed.

RESULTS

Of the 28 TARGET site PIs eligible for the study, 18 consented to participate (response rate: 64%). Many site PIs returned incidental findings to participants (61%), and the most common finding that was returned was serious (but not life-threatening) and treatable (54.5%). More than half of the investigators believed that adequacy of clinical follow up (58.8%) and legal liability if incidental findings are not disclosed (55.6%) were extremely important factors in returning incidental research findings from whole body FDG PET/CT. All investigators felt very obligated to return incidental research findings if scans revealed a treatable, high-risk medical condition. Most investigators felt very obligated to disclose incidental findings with important health implications (94.4%), for which proven preventive or therapeutic interventions exist (77.8%), that provide early detection of a health problem (72.2%), if participants ask for their incidental findings (72.2%), and if scans have established validity for a particular medical condition (61.1%).

CONCLUSION

Although it is recommended that researchers report and manage incidental research findings, our data show differing views and uncertainties on what and how to return, and the extent of follow up needed to manage, incidental findings from whole body FDG PET/CT; this highlights the need for more specific and standardized guidance.

Participant perspectives on management and communication of incidental findings identified on radiographic imaging performed during a clinical research trial: A single site pilot study

Background

Incidental findings (IFs) in radiographic imaging are unexpected discoveries unrelated to the purpose of the scan. While the protocol for communicating IFs is better defined for clinical providers, little formal guidance on communicating IFs identified on research scans to participants is available. This study explored participants' experience with communication and management of IFs found on imaging identified in a clinical research trial.

Methods

Participants who completed the parent clinical trial, which included imaging, were invited to participate. A survey, developed by the study team, was administered telephonically, and consisted of multiple choice and open-ended questions.

Results

Thirty participants enrolled in the survey study. Ninety-three percent of all participants (with and without IFs) reported they would participate in another research study to learn information that was important to their health. Seventeen participants reported being notified about an IF on their study scan(s). Ninety-four percent of those participants with an IF were satisfied with how the IF was communicated, and 71 % were grateful to find out about a health problem before it became an issue. Forty-one percent reported that learning about the IF led to improved health. Content analysis of the data from the open-ended questions revealed categories and themes which enriched the quantitative data.

Conclusion

Participants generally wanted to know when an IF was discovered unexpectedly on their imaging scan, as they learned important information about their health. Findings underscore the importance of having a clear protocol for communicating IFs to research study participants that undergo evaluation with radiographic imaging.

Decision-making tree for surgical treatment in meningioma: a geriatric cohort study

Controversies persist regarding the benefits of surgery in elderly patients with meningiomas. The objective of this study was to develop decision-making scale to clarify the necessity for surgical intervention and provide clinical consultation for this special population. This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single center and included 478 elderly patients (≥ 65 years) who underwent meningioma resection. Follow-up was recorded to determine recurrence and mortality rates. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify significantly preoperative factors, and prognostic prediction models were developed with determined cutoff values for the prognostic index (PI). Model discrimination was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves based on the PI stratification, which categorized patients into low- and high-risk groups. A decision-making tree was then established based on the risk stratification from both models. Among all patients analyzed (n = 478), 62 (13.0%) experience recurrence and 47 (10.0%) died during the follow-up period. Significantly preoperative parameters from both models included advanced age, aCCI, recurrent tumor, motor cortex involvement, male sex, peritumoral edema, and tumor located in skull base (all P < 0.05). According to the classification of PI from the two models, the decision-making tree provided four recommendations that can be used for clinical consultation. Surgery is not recommended for patients assigned to the high-risk group in both models. Patients who meet the low-risk criteria in any model may undergo surgical intervention, but the final decision should depend on the surgeon's expertise.

Detection rate of contrast-enhanced brain magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cognitive impairment

INTRODUCTION

The number of brain MRI with contrast media performed in patients with cognitive impairment has increased without universal agreement. We aimed to evaluate the detection rate of contrast-enhanced brain MRI in patients with cognitive impairment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-institution, retrospective study included 4,838 patients who attended outpatient clinics for cognitive impairment evaluation and underwent brain MRI with or without contrast enhancement from December 2015 to February 2020. Patients who tested positive for cognitive impairment were followed-up to confirm whether the result was true-positive and provide follow-up management. Detection rate was defined as the proportion of patients with true-positive results and was compared between groups with and without contrast enhancement. Individual matching in a 1:2 ratio according to age, sex, and year of test was performed.

RESULTS

The overall detection rates of brain MRI with and without contrast media were 4.7% (57/1,203; 95% CI: 3.6%-6.1%) and 1.8% (65/3,635; 95% CI: 1.4%-2.3%), respectively (P<0.001); individual matching demonstrated similar results (4.7% and 1.9%). Among 1,203 patients with contrast media, 3.6% was only detectable with the aid of contrast media. The proportion of patients who underwent follow-up imaging or treatment for the detected lesions were significantly higher in the group with contrast media (2.0% and 0.6%, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Detection rate of brain MRI for lesions only detectable with contrast media in patients with cognitive impairment was not high enough and further study is needed to identify whom would truly benefit with contrast media.

Paradigm Shift in the Treatment of Meningiomas

Meningiomas are the most common brain tumor in adults with rising incidence rates due to an aging population globally, increased availability of neuroimaging, and increased awareness of this condition by treating clinicians and primary care physicians. Surgical resection remains the mainstay of treatment, with adjuvant radiotherapy reserved for higher grade meningiomas or tumors that undergo incomplete resections. Whereas these tumors were classically defined by their histopathological features and subtypes, recent work has uncovered the molecular alterations that may lead to tumor development and have important prognostic implications. However, there remain important clinical questions regarding the management of meningiomas and current clinical guidelines continue to evolve as additional studies add onto the growing body of work that enables us to better understand these tumors.

The prevalence of incidental findings on pelvis MRI of 8-13-year-old children

BACKGROUND

The prevalence and clinical relevance of incidental findings (IF(s)) on imaging assessing the pelvis in children has not been well documented.

METHODS

Three-thousand two-hundred thirty-one children (mean age 10.2 (range 8.6-12.9) years) were evaluated with MRI of the hips, pelvis, and lumbar spine, as part of a prospective population-based pediatric cohort study. Scans were reviewed by trained medical staff for abnormalities. IFs were categorized by clinical relevance and need for further clinical evaluation.

RESULTS

8.3% (n = 267) of children featured at least one IF. One or more musculoskeletal IFs were found in 7.9% (n = 254) of children, however, only 0.8% (n = 2) of musculoskeletal IFs required clinical evaluation. Most frequent abnormalities were simple bone cysts 6.0% (n = 195), chondroid lesions 0.6% (n = 20), and perineural cysts 0.5% (n = 15). Intra-abdominal IFs were detected in 0.5% (n = 17) of children, with over half (n = 9) of these requiring evaluation. The three most common intra-abdominal IFs were a duplex collecting system 0.09% (n = 3), significant ascites 0.06% (n = 2), and hydroureteronephrosis 0.06% (n = 2).

CONCLUSIONS

IFs on MRI of the lower abdominal and hip region are relatively common in children aged 8-13 years, most of these can be confidently categorized as clinically irrelevant without the need for additional clinical or radiologic follow up.

IMPACT

Our research contributes greatly to the knowledge of the prevalence of (asymptomatic) pathology in children. We evaluated MR images of 3231 children, covering hip joints, pelvic skeleton, lower and mid-abdomen, and lumbar and lower thoracic spine as part of a population study. One or more musculoskeletal incidental finding were found in 7.9% of children. Most of these can be confidently categorized as clinically irrelevant without the need for additional follow up. However 0.8% of musculoskeletal findings required further evaluation. Intra-abdominal incidental findings were detected in 0.5% of children, with over half of the abdominal and urogenital findings requiring further evaluation.

The impact of reporting magnetic resonance imaging incidental findings in the Canadian alliance for healthy hearts and minds cohort

BACKGROUND

In the Canadian Alliance for Healthy Hearts and Minds (CAHHM) cohort, participants underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain, heart, and abdomen, that generated incidental findings (IFs). The approach to managing these unexpected results remain a complex issue. Our objectives were to describe the CAHHM policy for the management of IFs, to understand the impact of disclosing IFs to healthy research participants, and to reflect on the ethical obligations of researchers in future MRI studies.

METHODS

Between 2013 and 2019, 8252 participants (mean age 58 ± 9 years, 54% women) were recruited with a follow-up questionnaire administered to 909 participants (40% response rate) at 1-year. The CAHHM policy followed a restricted approach, whereby routine feedback on IFs was not provided. Only IFs of severe structural abnormalities were reported.

RESULTS

Severe structural abnormalities occurred in 8.3% (95% confidence interval 7.7-8.9%) of participants, with the highest proportions found in the brain (4.2%) and abdomen (3.1%). The majority of participants (97%) informed of an IF reported no change in quality of life, with 3% of participants reporting that the knowledge of an IF negatively impacted their quality of life. Furthermore, 50% reported increased stress in learning about an IF, and in 95%, the discovery of an IF did not adversely impact his/her life insurance policy. Most participants (90%) would enrol in the study again and perceived the MRI scan to be beneficial, regardless of whether they were informed of IFs. While the implications of a restricted approach to IF management was perceived to be mostly positive, a degree of diagnostic misconception was present amongst participants, indicating the importance of a more thorough consent process to support participant autonomy.

CONCLUSION

The management of IFs from research MRI scans remain a challenging issue, as participants may experience stress and a reduced quality of life when IFs are disclosed. The restricted approach to IF management in CAHHM demonstrated a fair fulfillment of the overarching ethical principles of respect for autonomy, concern for wellbeing, and justice. The approach outlined in the CAHHM policy may serve as a framework for future research studies. Clinical trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02220582 .

Patients' Views About the Disclosure of Collateral Findings in Pragmatic Clinical Trials: a Focus Group Study

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are increasingly being conducted to efficiently generate evidence to inform healthcare decision-making. Despite their growing acceptance, PCTs may involve a variety of ethical issues, including the management of pragmatic clinical trial-collateral findings (PCT-CFs), that is, information that emerges in PCTs that is unrelated to the primary research questions but may have implications for patients, clinicians, and health systems.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to understand patients' views about PCT-CF disclosure, including how, by whom, and the nature and extent of information provided.

DESIGN

Prospective, qualitative focus group study.

PARTICIPANTS

Focus groups were conducted in Baltimore, MD; Houston, TX; and Seattle, WA (overall N = 66), during July and August 2019.

APPROACH

All groups discussed a hypothetical scenario involving the detection of a PCT-CF of contraindicated medications. Participants were asked about their reactions to the PCT-CF and issues related to its disclosure.

KEY RESULTS

Reactions to learning about the PCT-CF were mixed, ranging from fear of a significant health problem, anger that the contraindicated medications had gone unnoticed and/or for being included in research without their permission, to gratitude for the information. Preferences for how such disclosures are made varied but were driven by several consistent desires, namely minimizing patient harm and anxiety and demonstrating trust and respect. Many wanted their treating clinician to be informed of the PCT-CF so that they would be prepared to answer patients' questions and to discuss treatment options.

CONCLUSIONS

The detection of PCT-CFs is likely to increase with further expansion of PCTs. As such, clinicians will undoubtedly become involved in the management of PCT-CFs. Our data illustrate some of the challenges clinicians may face when their patients are informed of a PCT-CF and the need to develop guidance for disclosing PCT-CFs in ways that align with patients' preferences and values.

The Impact of Incidental Findings Detected During Brain Imaging on Research Participants of the Rotterdam Study: An Interview Study

This interview study investigates the short- and long-term implications of incidental findings detected through brain imaging on research participants’ lives and their surroundings. For this study, nine participants of the Rotterdam Scan Study with an incidental finding were approached and interviewed. When examining research participants’ narratives on the impact of the disclosure of incidental findings, the authors identified five sets of tensions with regard to motivations for and expectations of research participation, preferences regarding disclosure, short- and long-term impacts and impacts on self and others. The paper shows: (1) that the impact of incidental findings may be greater than participants at first let on; (2) incidental findings can have significant effects on participants’ social environment; and (3) participants may not feel prepared for disclosure even if incidental findings have been discussed during the informed consent process. The authors call for investigators to be aware of research participants’ experiences and these short- and long-term impacts when designing suitable courses of action for the detection and management of incidental findings in research settings.

Treatment Outcomes of Incidental Intracranial Meningiomas: Results from the IMPACT Cohort

BACKGROUND

Incidental findings such as meningioma are becoming increasingly prevalent. There is no consensus on the optimal management of these patients. The aim of this study was to examine the outcomes of patients diagnosed with an incidental meningioma who were treated with surgery or radiotherapy.

METHODS

Single-center retrospective cohort study of adult patients diagnosed with an incidental intracranial meningioma (2007-2015). Outcomes recorded were postintervention morbidity, histopathologic diagnosis, and treatment response.

RESULTS

Out of 441 patients, 44 underwent treatment. Median age at intervention was 56.1 years (interquartile range [IQR], 49.6-66.5); patients included 35 women and 9 men. The main indication for imaging was headache (25.9%). Median meningioma volume was 4.55 cm³ (IQR, 1.91-8.61), and the commonest location was convexity (47.7%). Six patients underwent surgery at initial diagnosis. Thirty-eight had intervention (34 with surgery and 4 with radiotherapy) after a median active monitoring duration of 24 months (IQR, 11.8-42.0). Indications for treatment were radiologic progression (n = 26), symptom development (n = 6), and patient preference (n = 12). Pathology revealed World Health Organization (WHO) grade 1 meningioma in 36 patients and WHO grade 2 in 4 patients. The risk of postoperative surgical and medical morbidity requiring treatment was 25%. Early and late moderate adverse events limiting activities of daily living occurred in 28.6% of patients treated with radiotherapy. Recurrence rate after surgery was 2.5%. All meningiomas regressed or remained radiologically stable after radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The morbidity after treatment of incidental intracranial meningioma is not negligible. Considering most operated tumors are WHO grade 1, treatment should be reserved for those manifesting symptoms or demonstrating substantial growth on radiologic surveillance.

Ethics and Collateral Findings in Pragmatic Clinical Trials

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) offer important benefits, such as generating evidence that is suited to inform real-world health care decisions and increasing research efficiency. However, PCTs also present ethical challenges. One such challenge involves the management of information that emerges in a PCT that is unrelated to the primary research question(s), yet may have implications for the individual patients, clinicians, or health care systems from whom or within which research data were collected. We term these findings as ?pragmatic clinical trial collateral findings,? or ?PCT-CFs?. In this article, we explore the ethical considerations associated with the identification, assessment, and management of PCT-CFs, and how these considerations may vary based upon the attributes of a specific PCT. Our purpose is to map the terrain of PCT-CFs to serve as a foundation for future scholarship as well as policy-making and to facilitate careful deliberation about actual cases as they occur in practice.

The Role of Surgery in Meningiomas

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review presents the most recent evidences and recommendations in the pre-, intra-, and post-surgical management of patients harboring meningiomas. Due to the increasing relevance of multimodal approaches, in order to preserve patients' neurological function and quality of life (QoL), the role of observation and radiation treatments (as either primary or adjuvant therapy) has also been discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple advances in neurosurgery, including the use of the microscope and endoscope, improved preoperative neuroimaging, intraoperative image-guided approaches, and intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring, have extended the neurosurgeon's ability to remove lesions that were previously considered only partially resectable or unresectable, while minimizing morbidity. On the other hand, the preservation of patients' neurological integrity and QoL are increasingly important issues, more than complete tumor resection, for both patients and neurosurgeons. In this setting, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and radiotherapy (RT) may be considered safe and effective alternatives for asymptomatic small- to moderate-sized tumors that demonstrate growth on serial imaging, or in combination with planned subtotal resection (STR) for tumors in critical locations. Data supporting the use of pharmacotherapy in meningiomas are, to date, weak, but the strength of the evidence might improve in the next future with the identification of targetable mutations. Complete microsurgical resection remains the standard of care if it can be achieved with minimal or no morbidity. However, many studies have reported SRS/RT as safe and effective treatments, either as primary approach or as complementary to surgery, especially when dealing with critically located meningiomas (e.g., cranial base) or in patients with comorbidity or wishing to avoid invasive treatments. The management of meningiomas is a field of complementary disciplines: neurosurgeon needs to work closely with radiation oncologists while tailoring the optimal treatment for these patients in order to achieve the best results.

Incidental findings on brain imaging and blood tests: results from the first phase of Insight 46, a prospective observational substudy of the 1946 British birth cohort

OBJECTIVE

To summarise the incidental findings detected on brain imaging and blood tests during the first wave of data collection for the Insight 46 study.

DESIGN

Prospective observational sub-study of a birth cohort.

SETTING

Single-day assessment at a research centre in London, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

502 individuals were recruited from the MRC National Survey of Health and Development (NSHD), the 1946 British birth cohort, based on pre-specified eligibility criteria; mean age was 70.7 (SD: 0.7) and 49% were female.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Data regarding the number and types of incidental findings were summarised as counts and percentages, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

93.8% of participants completed a brain scan (n=471); 4.5% of scanned participants had a pre-defined reportable abnormality on brain MRI (n=21); suspected vascular malformations and suspected intracranial mass lesions were present in 1.9% (n=9) and 1.5% (n=7) respectively; suspected cerebral aneurysms were the single most common vascular abnormality, affecting 1.1% of participants (n=5), and suspected meningiomas were the most common intracranial lesion, affecting 0.6% of participants (n=3); 34.6% of participants had at least one abnormality on clinical blood tests (n=169), but few reached the prespecified threshold for urgent action (n=11).

CONCLUSIONS

In older adults, aged 69-71 years, potentially serious brain MRI findings were detected in around 5% of participants, and clinical blood test abnormalities were present in around one third of participants. Knowledge of the expected prevalence of incidental findings in the general population at this age is useful in both research and clinical settings.

Incidental intracranial meningiomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factors and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Incidental discovery accounts for 30% of newly-diagnosed intracranial meningiomas. There is no consensus on their optimal management. This review aimed to evaluate the outcomes of different management strategies for these tumors.

METHODS

Using established systematic review methods, six databases were scanned up to September 2017. Pooled event proportions were estimated using a random effects model. Meta-regression of prognostic factors was performed using individual patient data.

RESULTS

Twenty studies (2130 patients) were included. Initial management strategies at diagnosis were: surgery (27.3%), stereotactic radiosurgery (22.0%) and active monitoring (50.7%) with a weighted mean follow-up of 49.5 months (SD = 29.3). The definition of meningioma growth and monitoring regimens varied widely impeding relevant meta-analysis. The pooled risk of symptom development in patients actively monitored was 8.1% (95% CI 2.7-16.1). Associated factors were peritumoral edema (OR 8.72 [95% CI 0.35-14.90]) and meningioma diameter ≥ 3 cm (OR 34.90 [95% CI 5.17-160.40]). The pooled proportion of intervention after a duration of active monitoring was 24.8% (95% CI 7.5-48.0). Weighted mean time-to-intervention was 24.8 months (SD = 18.2). The pooled risks of morbidity following surgery and radiosurgery, accounting for cross-over, were 11.8% (95% CI 3.7-23.5) and 32.0% (95% CI 10.6-70.5) respectively. The pooled proportion of operated meningioma being WHO grade I was 94.0% (95% CI 88.2-97.9).

CONCLUSION

The management of incidental meningioma varies widely. Most patients who clinically or radiologically progressed did so within 5 years of diagnosis. Intervention at diagnosis may lead to unnecessary overtreatment. Prospective data is needed to develop a risk calculator to better inform management strategies.

Impact of detecting potentially serious incidental findings during multi-modal imaging

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.

Impact of detecting potentially serious incidental findings during multi-modal imaging

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.

Impact of detecting potentially serious incidental findings during multi-modal imaging

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.