Practical approaches to incidental findings in brain imaging research

Incidental findings in research brain MRI: Definition, prevalence and ethical implications

Radiological incidental findings (IFs) are previously undetected abnormalities which are unrelated to the original indication for imaging and are unexpectedly discovered. In brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the prevalence of IFs is increasing. By reviewing the literature on IFs in brain MRI performed for research purposes and discussing ethical considerations of IFs, this paper provides an overview of brain IF research results and factors contributing to inconsistencies and considers how the consent process can be improved from an ethical perspective. We found that despite extensive literature regarding IFs in research MRI of the brain, there are major inconsistencies in the reported prevalence, ranging from 1.3% to 99%. Many factors appear to contribute to this broad range: lack of standardised definition, participant demographics variance, heterogenous MRI scanner strength and sequences, reporter variation and results classification. We also found significant discrepancies in the review, consent and clinical communication processes pertaining to the ethical nature of these studies. These findings have implications for future studies, particularly those involving artificial intelligence. Further research, particularly in relation to MRI brain IFs would be useful to explore the generalisability of study results.

The Realization of Portable MRI for Indigenous Communities in the USA and Canada

The paucity of existing baseline data for understanding neurologic health and the effects of injury on people from Indigenous populations is causally related to the limited representation of communities in neuroimaging research to date. In this paper, we explore ways to change this trend in the context of portable MRI, where portability has opened up imaging to communities that have been neglected or inaccessible in the past. We discuss pathways to engage local leadership, foster the participation of communities for this unprecedented opportunity, and empower field-based researchers to bring the holistic worldview embraced by Indigenous communities to neuroimaging research.

An Equity and Justice-Informed Ethical Framework to Guide Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research

The handling of incidental findings (IFs) in brain imaging studies has been a source of contention among scientists and bioethicists. A conceptual framework informed by diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and distributive justice approaches, namely EUSTICE, is proposed for the ethical handling and reporting of IFs in brain imaging research. I argue that EUSTICE provides a systematic and inclusive approach to addressing the ethical conundrum around IF disclosure and managing IFs proportionately and sensitively in brain imaging research. The EUSTICE framework may have implications for the field of neurosciences or human studies broadly in guiding ethics of IFs in research.

Incidental Findings Among Youth Participating in Multimodal Imaging Research: Characteristics of Findings and Description of a Management Approach

Research imaging in healthy and clinical youth populations yields incidental findings that require a management strategy. Our primary objective was to document the frequency and nature of incidental findings within a research group integrating multiple imaging modalities. A second objective was to describe the evolution of an approach to handling incidental findings. A case example was included to display the intricacies of some of these scenarios. Youth, ages 13-20 years, with bipolar disorder, familial risk for bipolar disorder, or healthy controls, obtained one or a combination of neuroimaging, cardio-thoracic imaging, retinal imaging, and carotid imaging. All images were systematically reviewed for incidental findings. Overall, of 223 participants (n = 102 healthy controls), 59% (n = 131) had a brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) incidental finding and 27% (n = 60) had at least one incidental brain finding requiring non-urgent follow-up. In addition, of 109 participants with chest/cardiac MRI and carotid ultrasound, 3% (n = 3) had chest findings, 2% (n = 2) had cardiac findings, and 1% (n = 1) had a carotid finding. Of 165 youth with retinal imaging, 1% (n = 2) had incidental findings. While the vast majority of these incidental findings were of a non-serious, non-urgent nature, there were noteworthy exceptions. Imaging research groups need a system that emphasizes the value of clinical review of research images and one that is collaborative and responsive in order to inform follow-up plans. Rating systems that have been developed and used in neuroimaging for the classification of incidental findings can be adapted for use in areas other than the brain. Regardless of severity, incidental findings may raise anxiety in youth participants and their parents. The optimal threshold is one that balances transparency with utility.

Taking it to the bank: the ethical management of individual findings arising in secondary research

A rapidly growing proportion of health research uses 'secondary data': data used for purposes other than those for which it was originally collected. Do researchers using secondary data have an obligation to disclose individual research findings to participants? While the importance of this question has been duly recognised in the context of primary research (ie, where data are collected from participants directly), it remains largely unexamined in the context of research using secondary data. In this paper, we critically examine the arguments for a moral obligation to disclose individual research findings in the context of primary research, to determine if they can be applied to secondary research. We conclude that they cannot. We then propose that the nature of the relationship between researchers and participants is what gives rise to particular moral obligations, including the obligation to disclose individual results. We argue that the relationship between researchers and participants in secondary research does not generate an obligation to disclose. However, we also argue that the biobanks or data archives which collect and provide access to secondary data may have such an obligation, depending on the nature of the relationship they establish with participants.

Nonmalignant meningioma and vestibular schwannoma incidence trends in the United States, 2004-2017

BACKGROUND

Given concerns about risks associated with the growing use of mobile phones over recent decades, the authors analyzed temporal trends in incidence rates of nonmalignant meningioma and vestibular schwannoma in the United States.

METHODS

The incidence of nonmalignant meningioma and vestibular schwannoma among adults in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 18 registries during 2004 through 2017 was evaluated according to the method of diagnosis: microscopically (MC) or radiographically confirmed (RGC). Annual percent changes (APCs) and 95% CIs were estimated using log-linear models.

RESULTS

Overall meningioma rates (n = 108,043) increased significantly from 2004 to 2009 (APC, 5.4%; 95% CI, 4.4%-6.4%) but subsequently rose at a slower pace through 2017 (APC, 1.0%; 95% CI, 0.6%-1.5%). Rates for MC meningiomas changed little from 2004 to 2017 (APC, -0.3%; 95% CI, -0.7%, 0.1%) but rose rapidly for RGC meningiomas until 2009 (APC, 9.5%; 95% CI, 7.8%-11.1%) and rose more modestly thereafter (APC, 2.3%; 95% CI, 1.5%-3.0%). Overall vestibular schwannoma rates (n = 17,475) were stable (APC, 0.4%; 95% CI, -0.2%, 1.0%), but MC vestibular schwannoma rates decreased (APC, -1.9%; 95% CI, -2.7%, -1.1%), whereas RGC vestibular schwannoma rates rose (2006-2017: APC, 1.7%; 95% CI, 0.5%-3.0%). For each tumor, the trends by diagnostic method were similar for each sex and each racial/ethnic group, but RGC diagnosis was more likely in older patients and for smaller tumors. Meningioma trends and the proportion of RGC diagnoses varied notably by registry.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall trends obscured differences by diagnostic method in this first large, detailed assessment, but the recent stable rates argue against an association with mobile phone use. Variation among registries requires evaluation to improve the registration of these nonmalignant tumors.

LAY SUMMARY

The etiology of most benign meningiomas and vestibular schwannomas is poorly understood, but concerns have been raised about whether mobile phone use contributes to risk of developing these tumors. Descriptive studies examining temporal trends could provide insight; however, globally, few registries collect these nonmalignant cases. In the United States, reporting benign meningiomas and vestibular schwannomas became required by law in 2004. This was the first large, systematic study to quantify and characterize incidence trends for meningioma and vestibular schwannoma according to whether the tumors were diagnosed microscopically or only radiographically. Differential trends across registries and by diagnostic method suggest that caution should be used when interpreting the patterns.

A Just Standard: The Ethical Management of Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research

Neuroimaging research regularly yields "incidental findings": observations of potential clinical significance in healthy volunteers or patients, but which are unrelated to the purpose or variables of the study.

Prevalence of incidentally discovered findings on brain MRI in adult Egyptian population

Background

Apparently, asymptomatic intracranial anomalies of potential clinical significance are becoming problematic, especially with the increase of use of brain MRI by clinicians and researchers. Performing MRI at higher resolution and stronger magnetic field and with more selective sequences has led to the detection of subtle brain anomalies that were not detected previously. Incidental findings are defined as previously undetected anomalies of potential clinical relevance that are unexpectedly detected and not related to the indication of the scan.

Knowing about their existence would help clinicians to inform their patients of the potential risks and plan for long-term follow-up when indicated.

Results

Seven hundred fifty-three neurologically healthy subjects (389 males and 364 females) who underwent MRI scanning of the brain were screened for the presence of incidental findings, and the prevalence of each finding was recorded. Incidental findings were recorded in 11.7% of the subjects with meningiomas being the most commonly encountered finding (2.5%) followed by vascular malformations (aneurysms, cavernomas) in about 2% of the subjects. Meningiomas, cavernomas, and aneurysms had significantly higher prevalence in females than in males. The prevalence of neoplastic incidental findings increased with age, while the detection of non-neoplastic findings seemed to decrease with age.

Conclusion

Incidental findings were relatively common in the adult Egyptian population. The most common findings were meningiomas, followed by vascular malformations and arachnoids cysts. Knowing about their existence will help directing patients towards the proper specialist and plan for appropriate follow-up to avoid potential clinical hazards. It also raises the awareness of the importance of screening the brain scans while scanning the patient for other purposes like scanning the paranasal sinuses, orbits, and petrous temporal bones.

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.

Incidental Findings on Brain MRI in People with HIV Infection

BACKGROUND

Incidental findings are a well-known complication of imaging studies done for both diagnostic and research purposes. Little is known about the rates and types of incidental findings found on brain MRI in patients with HIV infection, who may be at risk for HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorders (HAND).

METHODS

The parent study included 108 adults with HIV infection and 125 demographically-matched uninfected controls who completed MRI and neuropsychological testing. Incidental findings were classified by the study team as vascular, neoplastic, congenital, other neurologic, or non-neurologic. Categorical measures were compared using Pearson chi-square tests; continuous measures were compared using t-tests.

RESULTS

Among participants with HIV infection, 36/108 (33%) had incidental findings compared to 33/125 (26%) controls (p = 0.248). Rates of incidental findings were significantly correlated with increasing age in both participants with HIV infection (p = 0.013) and controls (p = 0.022). We found no correlation between presence of incidental findings and sex or race/ethnicity among either cohort, and no correlation with CD4 count or HAND status for the HIV-infected cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Incidental findings were common in both participants with HIV infection and controls, at higher rates than previously reported in healthy populations. There was no significant difference in prevalence between the groups.

Incidental Brain Tumors in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review and Reappraisal of Literature

OBJECTIVES

Management of incidental asymptomatic brain tumors in children is controversial due to lack of clear evidence-based guidelines. We present this systematic review in an attempt to highlight an optimal treatment paradigm.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Databases were searched up to August 2019 using the keywords "incidental," "brain tumor," and "pediatric." Our main focus was on brain lesions suspected for neoplasm, diagnosed incidentally on neuroimaging in an otherwise asymptomatic patient <18 years old. Cystic, vascular, and inflammatory brain lesions were excluded.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies comprising 308 patients were included. All cases were diagnosed using magnetic resonance imaging. The most common indications for imaging were headache (93; 30%) and trauma (72; 23%). Lesion distribution was supratentorial (179; 58%), infratentorial (121; 40%), and intraventricular (8; 3%). Of 308 cases, 243 (79%) were managed with neuroradiological surveillance and 57 (19%) by upfront surgical excision. Of those managed conservatively, 177 (73%) remained stable within a mean follow-up of 30 months, 54 (22%) progressed, and 12 (5%) spontaneously regressed. Meanwhile, upfront excision achieved complete remission in all 57 cases over a mean follow-up of 68.3 months.

CONCLUSION

A small body of evidence has emerged, highlighting the marked heterogeneity and contradictory results between the available studies, limiting our ability to draw solid conclusions. At this point, the decision between surgery and "watchful waiting" should be tailored on an individual patient basis depending on suspicion of malignancy, clinical or radiologic progression, and parental preference.

Discovery and informing research participants of incidental findings detected in brain magnetic resonance imaging studies: Review and multi-institutional study

BACKGROUND

Brain imaging studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sometimes reveal incidental findings (IFs) that might be relevant to some of the health issues in research participants. Although professional communities have discussed how to manage these IFs, there is no global consensus on the concrete handling procedures including how to inform participants of IFs.

METHODS

First, this study reviewed previous studies for the number of IFs discovered in brain imaging studies using MEDLINE. Second, a multi-institutional study determined the number of IF discoveries and evaluated the method of informing participants at multiple institutions, which participated in a national brain science project in Japan.

RESULTS

Both the review and multi-institutional study showed that IFs with a high urgency level were discovered in 0-2.0% of participants, including healthy volunteers, and that the rate of IF discovery in general was higher in studies conducted in elderly population. Moreover, multi-institutional study suggested the criteria used to judge whether or not to inform participants of IFs may differ by institution.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that in order to ensure informing the participants of high urgency IFs, physicians who are capable of interpreting brain images clinically should review all brain images, and the establishment of a support system is required for brain imaging studies at nonmedical institutions. Since the method of informing participants of IFs might affect their understanding and acceptance of IFs, which are related to managing risks of false "clean bill of health" or psychological impacts of informing IFs, further research focusing on communication of IFs is needed.

A Social Constructivism Decision-Making Approach to Managing Incidental Findings in Neuroimaging Research

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a powerful tool used in cognitive neuroscientific research. fMRI is noninvasive, safe, and relatively accessible, making it an ideal method to draw inferences about the brain-behavior relationship. When conducting fMRI research, scientists must consider risks associated with brain imaging. In particular, the risk of potentially identifying an abnormal brain finding in an fMRI research scan poses a complex problem that researchers should be prepared to address. This article illustrates how a social constructivism decision-making model can be used as a framework to guide researchers as they develop protocols to address this issue.

Ethical framework for the detection, management and communication of incidental findings in imaging studies, building on an interview study of researchers' practices and perspectives

BACKGROUND

As thousands of healthy research participants are being included in small and large imaging studies, it is essential that dilemmas raised by the detection of incidental findings are adequately handled. Current ethical guidance indicates that pathways for dealing with incidental findings should be in place, but does not specify what such pathways should look like. Building on an interview study of researchers' practices and perspectives, we identified key considerations for the set-up of pathways for the detection, management and communication of incidental findings in imaging research.

METHODS

We conducted an interview study with a purposive sample of researchers (n = 20) at research facilities across the Netherlands. Based on a qualitative analysis of these interviews and on existing guidelines found in the literature, we developed a prototype ethical framework, which was critically assessed and fine-tuned during a two-day international expert meeting with bioethicists and representatives from large population-based imaging studies from the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden and Belgium (n = 14).

RESULTS

Practices and policies for the handling of incidental findings vary strongly across the Netherlands, ranging from no review of research scans and limited feedback to research participants, to routine review of scans and the arrangement of clinical follow-up. Respondents felt that researchers do not have a duty to actively look for incidental findings, but they do have a duty to act on findings, when detected. The principle of reciprocity featured prominently in our interviews and expert meeting.

CONCLUSION

We present an ethical framework that may guide researchers and research ethics committees in the design and/or evaluation of appropriate pathways for the handling of incidental findings in imaging studies. The framework consists of seven steps: anticipation of findings, information provision and informed consent, scan acquisition, review of scans, consultation on detected abnormalities, communication of the finding, and further clinical management and follow-up of the research participant. Each of these steps represents a key decision to be made by researchers, which should be justified not only with reference to costs and/or logistical considerations, but also with reference to researchers' moral obligations and the principle of reciprocity.

Torcular pseudomass: a potential diagnostic pitfall in infants and young children

BACKGROUND

Incidental findings on brain MRI may constitute a diagnostic pitfall. We observed an incidental extra-axial midline rounded pseudomass between the torcular Herophili and the occipital squama, with spontaneous resolution, which we called "torcular pseudomass."

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the frequency, imaging features, natural history and developmental background of this finding in a large group of infants and young children.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective study by reviewing all brain MRIs performed in children younger than 3 years between 2007 and 2013 in a specialized pediatric hospital. We looked for soft tissue (minimum 2 mm thick) interposed between the torcula and the occipital squama on midsagittal T1 and T2 images; we recorded the maximal diameters and outcome.

RESULTS

Of 2,283 the children who had brain MRIs during the study period, 291 (12.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.11, 0.14) presented with a torcular pseudomass (median age 4 months, range 0 days to 35 months, 56% male). MRI features were the same in all of these children: T1 isointensity and T2 hyperintensity to the cerebral cortex, facilitated diffusion on diffusion-weighted imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient maps, and contrast enhancement. The median diameters were: anteroposterior, 5.8 mm; transverse, 10.5 mm; cranio-caudal, 20.6 mm. Follow-up MRI was available in 34.7% (95% CI: 0.20, 0.40) of the children; median follow-up time was 18 months. Among these children, 35.6% (95% CI: 0.26, 0.45) had total involution, 52.5% (95% CI: 0.26, 0.62) had partial involution and 4.1% (95% CI: 0.05, 0.18) showed stability.

CONCLUSION

Redundant soft tissue in the torcular region, or torcular pseudomass, is not an infrequent finding in infants and young children. It should be considered a physiological tissue, reflecting the postnatal developmental process of the brain and cranial vault, without the need for further investigation or follow-up imaging studies.

The Advantages and Challenges of Testing Children for Heritable Predisposition to Cancer

The increased application of germline genetic testing is expanding our understanding of the risk factors associated with childhood cancer development, and, in some cases, such testing is also informing clinical management. Nonetheless, the incorporation of genetic testing into the pediatric oncology setting is complex and associated with many ethical and practical challenges. The decision as to whether to pursue clinical genetic testing for hereditary cancer predisposition for children should always be guided by the best interest of the child. Despite this fundamental ethical principle, patients, parents, and health care providers may differ in their opinions. Clinical genetic testing to detect the presence of predisposition syndromes associated with childhood-onset cancers, particularly those for which surveillance and preventive measures have proven to enhance outcome, is currently well accepted. On the other hand, clinical genetic testing of children for syndromes associated with adult-onset cancers has raised many concerns about the potential for psychological harm and disrespect of patient autonomy. As a consequence, such testing is not encouraged. The challenges surrounding germline genetic testing are further complicated when testing is done in the research setting and/or when it involves whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing approaches, which can uncover genetic variants that may or may not be associated with the disease under study. Accordingly, there is great debate around these processes and the most appropriate approaches regarding the return of test results. Future research is needed to enhance knowledge about how best to incorporate genomic information into clinical practice.

A Systematic Review of the Management of Incidental Findings in Genomic Research

Information empowerment has been the greatest gain of genomics, yet it also poses serious threat to its survival, especially when the information is incidental. There may be an emerging consensus that actionable incidental findings be returned. But this has not been supported by any systematic review. Future directions are equally missing. These are significant gaps.

To fill these gaps, an online search on PubMed and Genetics in Medicine website was conducted between 20th of August to 23rd of October, 2013; combining certain filters and phrases, such as ‘return incidental findings’. Nineteen (19) articles were selected from an avalanche of results, and reviewed. The review confirms a majority support for return of clinically actionable findings. The result also shows that the support represents views of Northern Americans. Critical contributions of Africans, Asians and Europeans are missing in this discourse. I recommended studies in this direction.

Disclosing neuroimaging incidental findings: a qualitative thematic analysis of health literacy challenges

Background

Returning neuroimaging incidental findings (IF) may create a challenge to research participants’ health literacy skills as they must interpret and make appropriate healthcare decisions based on complex radiology jargon. Disclosing IF can therefore present difficulties for participants, research institutions and the healthcare system. The purpose of this study was to identify the extent of the health literacy challenges encountered when returning neuroimaging IF. We report on findings from a retrospective survey and focus group sessions with major stakeholders involved in disclosing IF.

Methods

We surveyed participants who had received a radiology report from a research study and conducted focus groups with participants, parents of child participants, Institutional Review Board (IRB) members, investigators and physicians. Qualitative thematic analyses were conducted using standard group-coding procedures and descriptive summaries of health literacy scores and radiology report outcomes are examined.

Results

Although participants reported high health literacy skills (m = 87.3 on a scale of 1–100), 67 % did not seek medical care when recommended to do so; and many participants in the focus groups disclosed they could not understand the findings described in their report. Despite their lack of understanding, participants desire to have information about their radiology results, and the investigators feel ethically inclined to return findings.

Conclusions

The language in clinically useful radiology reports can create a challenge for participants’ health literacy skills and has the potential to negatively impact the healthcare system and investigators conducting imaging research. Radiology reports need accompanying resources that explain findings in lay language, which can help reduce the challenge caused by the need to communicate incidental findings.

MR imaging of the brain in large cohort studies: feasibility report of the population- and patient-based BiDirect study

OBJECTIVES

To describe the implementation and protocol of cerebral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the longitudinal BiDirect study and to report rates of study participation as well as management of incidental findings.

METHODS

Data came from the BiDirect study that investigates the relationship between depression and arteriosclerosis and comprises 2258 participants in three cohorts: 999 patients with depression, 347 patients with manifest cardiovascular disease (CVD) and 912 population-based controls. The study program includes MRI of the brain. Reasons for non-participation were systematically collected. Incidental findings were categorized and disclosed according to clinical relevance.

RESULTS

At baseline 2176 participants were offered MRI, of whom 1453 (67 %) completed it. Reasons for non-participation differed according to cohort, age and gender with controls showing the highest participation rate of 79 %. Patient cohorts had higher refusal rates and CVD patients a high prevalence of contraindications. In the first follow-up examination 69 % of participating subjects completed MRI. Incidental findings were disclosed to 246 participants (17 %). The majority of incidental findings were extensive white matter hyperintensities requiring further diagnostic work-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge about subjects and sensible definition of incidental findings are crucial for large-scale imaging projects. Our data offer practical and concrete information for the design of future studies.

KEY POINTS

• Willingness to participate in MRI is generally high, also in follow-up examinations. • Rates of refusal and prevalence of contraindications differ according to subject characteristics. • Extensive white matter hyperintensities considerably increase the disclosure rates of incidental findings. • MRI workflow requires continuous case-by-case handling by an interdisciplinary team.

Evolution of universal review and disclosure of MRI reports to research participants

BACKGROUND

Although incidental findings (IF) are commonly encountered in neuroimaging research, there is no consensus regarding what to do with them. Whether researchers are obligated to review scans for IF, or if such findings should be disclosed to research participants at all, is controversial. Objective data are required to inform reasonable research policy; unfortunately, such data are lacking in the published literature. This manuscript summarizes the development of a radiology review and disclosure system in place at a neuroimaging research institute and its impact on key stakeholders.

METHODS

The evolution of a universal radiology review system is described, from inception to its current status. Financial information is reviewed, and stakeholder impact is characterized through surveys and interviews.

RESULTS

Consistent with prior reports, 34% of research participants had an incidental finding identified, of which 2.5% required urgent medical attention. A total of 87% of research participants wanted their magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results regardless of clinical significance and 91% considered getting an MRI report a benefit of study participation. A total of 63% of participants who were encouraged to see a doctor about their incidental finding actually followed up with a physician. Reasons provided for not following-up included already knowing the finding existed (14%), not being able to afford seeing a physician (29%), or being reassured after speaking with the institute's Medical Director (43%). Of those participants who followed the recommendation to see a physician, nine (38%) required further diagnostic testing. No participants, including those who pursued further testing, regretted receiving their MRI report, although two participants expressed concern about the excessive personal cost. The current cost of the radiology review system is about $23 per scan.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to provide universal radiology review of research scans through a system that is cost-effective, minimizes investigator burden, and does not overwhelm local healthcare resources.

Effects of the pattern of glucocorticoid replacement on neural processing, emotional reactivity and well-being in healthy male individuals: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Deviation from the physiological glucocorticoid dynamics (circadian and underlying ultradian rhythmicity) is a common characteristic of various neuropsychiatric and endocrine disorders as well as glucocorticoid-based therapeutics. These states may be accompanied by neuropsychiatric symptomatology, suggesting continuous dynamic glucocorticoid equilibrium is essential for brain homeostasis.

Methods/design

The study consists of two parts. The preliminary stage of the study aims to validate (technically and pharmacologically) and optimise three different patterns of systemic cortisol administration in man. These patterns are based on the combinatory administration of metyrapone, to suppress endogenous cortisol production, and concurrent hydrocortisone replacement. The second, subsequent, core part of the study is a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study, where participants (healthy male individuals aged 18–60 years) will undergo all three hydrocortisone replacement schemes. During these infusion regimes, we plan a number of neurobehavioural tests and imaging of the brain to assess neural processing, emotional reactivity and perception, mood and self-perceived well-being. The psychological tests include: ecological momentary assessment, P1vital Oxford Emotional Test Battery and Emotional Potentiated Startle Test, Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire and the visual working memory task (n-back). The neuroimaging protocol combines magnetic resonance sequences that capture data related to the functional and perfusion status of the brain.

Discussion

Results of this clinical trial are designed to evaluate the impact (with possible mechanistic insights) of different patterns of daily glucocorticoid dynamics on neural processing and reactivity related to emotional perception and mood. This evidence should contribute to the optimisation of the clinical application of glucocorticoid-based therapeutics.

Trial registration

UK Clinical Research Network, IRAS Ref: 106181, UKCRN-ID-15236 (23 October 2013)

'Ethical responsibility' or 'a whole can of worms': differences in opinion on incidental finding review and disclosure in neuroimaging research from focus group discussions with participants, parents, IRB members, investigators, physicians and community members

PURPOSE

To identify the specific needs, preferences and expectations of the stakeholders impacted by returning neuroimaging incidental findings to research participants.

METHODS

Six key stakeholder groups were identified to participate in focus group discussions at our active neuroimaging research facility: Participants, Parents of child participants, Investigators, Institutional Review Board (IRB) Members, Physicians and Community Members. A total of 151 subjects attended these discussions. Transcripts were analysed using principles of Grounded Theory and group consensus coding.

RESULTS

A series of similar and divergent themes were identified across our subject groups. Similarities included beliefs that it is ethical for researchers to disclose incidental findings as it grants certain health and emotional benefits to participants. All stakeholders also recognised the potential psychological and financial risks to disclosure. Divergent perspectives elucidated consistent differences between our 'Participant' subjects (Participants, Parents, Community Members) and our 'Professional' subjects (IRB Members, Investigators and Physicians). Key differences included (1) what results should be reported, (2) participants' autonomous right to research information and (3) the perception of the risk-benefit ratio in managing results.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the perceived impact on all stakeholders involved in the process of disclosing incidental findings is necessary to determine appropriate research management policy. Our data further demonstrate the challenge of this task as different stakeholders evaluate the balance between risk and benefit related to their unique positions in this process. These findings offer some of the first qualitative insight into the expectations of the diverse stakeholders affected by incidental finding disclosure.

Ethical implications of an incidentally discovered asymptomatic Chiari malformation in a competitive athlete

The clinical and ethical implications of an asymptomatic 17-year-old competitive football player incidentally found to have a type 1 Chiari malformation without a syrinx on brain imaging are discussed. Considering that patients with Chiari malformations can sustain irreversible neurologic injury or death after a mild head injury, and given the lack of data describing the risk of catastrophic injury after head trauma, the ethics of clearing this athlete to return to play are reviewed.

The current impact of incidental findings found during neuroimaging on neurologists' workloads

Objective

Neuroimaging is an important diagnostic tool in the assessment of neurological disease, but often unmasks Incidental Findings (IFs). The negative impacts of IFs, such as ‘patient’ anxiety, present neurologists with management dilemmas, largely due to the limited knowledge base surrounding the medical significance of these IFs. In particular, the lack of evidence-based clinical trials investigating the efficacy of treatments for subclinical IFs makes management protocols challenging. The objective was to determine the impact IFs may have on neurologists’ workloads and healthcare budgets and to examine neurologists’ concerns regarding the clinical management of these ‘patients’.

Methods

Qualitative research based on constructivist grounded theory. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews of purposively sampled neurologists, coded, and concurrent comparative analysis performed. A substantive theory of the ‘IF impacts’ was developed after concept saturation.

Results

Neurologists managed the escalating workload caused by an increased number of referrals of ‘patients’ with IFs found during neuroimaging; however it was unclear whether this was sustainable in the future. Neurologists experienced IF management dilemmas and spent more time with ‘patients’ affected by anxiety. The lack of information provided to those undergoing neuroimaging by the referring clinician regarding the possibility of discovering IFs was highlighted.

Conclusion

The impact of IFs upon the neurologist, ‘patient’ and the health institution appeared considerable. Further research determining the natural history of subclinical IFs and the efficacy of intervention will help to alleviate these issues.

Communicating results in post-Belmont era biomonitoring studies: lessons from genetics and neuroimaging research

BACKGROUND

Biomonitoring is a critical tool to assess the effects of chemicals on health, as scientists seek to better characterize life-course exposures from diverse environments. This trend, coupled with increased institutional support for community-engaged environmental health research, challenge established ethical norms related to biomonitoring results communication and data sharing between scientists, study participants, and their wider communities.

METHODS

Through a literature review, participant observation at workshops, and interviews, we examine ethical tensions related to reporting individual data from chemical biomonitoring studies by drawing relevant lessons from the genetics and neuroimaging fields.

RESULTS

In all three fields ethical debates about whether/how to report-back results to study participants are precipitated by two trends. First, changes in analytical methods have made more data accessible to stakeholders. For biomonitoring, improved techniques enable detection of more chemicals at lower levels, and diverse groups of scientists and health advocates now conduct exposure studies. Similarly, innovations in genetics have catalyzed large-scale projects and broadened the scope of who has access to genetic information. Second, increasing public interest in personal medical information has compelled imaging researchers to address demands by participants to know their personal data, despite uncertainties about their clinical significance. Four ethical arenas relevant to biomonitoring results communication emerged from our review: tensions between participants' right-to-know their personal results versus their ability or right-to-act to protect their health; whether and how to report incidental findings; informed consent in biobanking; and open-access data sharing.

CONCLUSION

Ethically engaging participants in biomonitoring studies requires consideration of several issues, including scientific uncertainty about health implications and exposure sources, the ability of participants to follow up on potentially problematic results, tensions between individual and community research protections, governance and consent regarding secondary use of tissue samples, and privacy challenges in open access data sharing.

Stakeholder Opinions And Ethical Perspectives Support Complete Disclosure Of Incidental Findings In MRI Research

How far does a researcher's responsibility extend when an incidental finding is identified? Balancing pertinent ethical principles such as beneficence, respect for persons, and duty to rescue is not always straightforward, particularly in neuroimaging research where empirical data that might help guide decision-making is lacking. We conducted a systematic survey of perceptions and preferences of 396 investigators, research participants and IRB members at our institution. Using the partial entrustment model as described by Richardson, we argue that our data supports universal reading by a neuroradiologist of all research MRI scans for incidental findings and providing full disclosure to all participants.

Handling incidental findings in neuroimaging research in Japan: current state of research facilities and attitudes of investigators and the general population

Background

To establish appropriate measures that deal with incidental findings (IFs), the neuroscience community needs to address various ethical issues. The current state of research facilities regarding IFs and investigator attitudes as well as potentially eligible research participants must be assessed prior to future discussions and before the development of policies and guidelines. To this end, we conducted two questionnaire surveys to clarify i) how IFs are addressed at neuroimaging research facilities in Japan and ii) the views of investigators and potential research participants regarding the handling of IFs.

Methods

Thirty-one principal investigators (PIs) involved in the Strategic Research Program for Brain Sciences (SRPBS), a government-funded project, were asked to fill out a questionnaire regarding ways IFs were handled at the facility. A total of 110 investigators engaged in SRPBS tasks, including 31 PIs who participated in the research facility survey and researchers conducting studies under the management of the PIs, and 500 individuals from the general public (i.e., general population) were asked to select the most appropriate way to deal with IFs in two scenarios, namely the medical school and humanities and social sciences department scenarios.

Results

More than 40% of PIs responded that they did not know or were unsure of what type of approach was employed to handle IFs at their research facilities. Nevertheless, they were willing to improve the current status if sufficient resources were provided. With regard to specialist involvement, 37.7% of investigators responded that it was appropriate to have a specialist check all images in the medical school scenario, whereas 13.3% responded that such involvement was appropriate in the humanities and social sciences department scenario. In contrast, 76.1% and 61.0% of the general population indicated that specialist involvement was appropriate in the medical school and humanities and social sciences department scenarios, respectively. These results show that expectations of the general population exceed those of investigators regarding measures to address IFs. Both investigators and the general population demanded more responsibility from PIs at medical institutions, compared to PIs at non-medical institutions.

Conclusions

Based on our preliminary results, we recommended that a licensed physician perform a screening test to appropriately examine clear abnormalities. These recommendations were implemented by the SRPBS as guidelines for handling IFs in national research projects in Japan.

Returning individual research results for genome sequences of pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Disclosure of individual results to participants in genomic research is a complex and contentious issue. There are many existing commentaries and opinion pieces on the topic, but little empirical data concerning actual cases describing how individual results have been returned. Thus, the real life risks and benefits of disclosing individual research results to participants are rarely if ever presented as part of this debate.

METHODS

The Australian Pancreatic Cancer Genome Initiative (APGI) is an Australian contribution to the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC), that involves prospective sequencing of tumor and normal genomes of study participants with pancreatic cancer in Australia. We present three examples that illustrate different facets of how research results may arise, and how they may be returned to individuals within an ethically defensible and clinically practical framework. This framework includes the necessary elements identified by others including consent, determination of the significance of results and which to return, delineation of the responsibility for communication and the clinical pathway for managing the consequences of returning results.

RESULTS

Of 285 recruited patients, we returned results to a total of 25 with no adverse events to date. These included four that were classified as medically actionable, nine as clinically significant and eight that were returned at the request of the treating clinician. Case studies presented depict instances where research results impacted on cancer susceptibility, current treatment and diagnosis, and illustrate key practical challenges of developing an effective framework.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that return of individual results is both feasible and ethically defensible but only within the context of a robust framework that involves a close relationship between researchers and clinicians.

Disclosing incidental findings in brain research: the rights of minors in decision-making

MRI is used routinely in research with children to generate new knowledge about brain development. The detection of unexpected brain abnormalities (incidental findings; IFs) in these studies presents unique challenges. While key issues surrounding incidence and significance, duty of care, and burden of disclosure have been addressed substantially for adults, less empirical data and normative analyses exist for minors who participate in minimal risk research. To identify ethical concerns and fill existing gaps, we conducted a comprehensive review of papers that focused explicitly on the discovery of IFs in minors. The discourse in the 21 papers retrieved for this analysis amply covered practical issues such as informed consent and screening, difficulties in ascertaining clinical significance, the economic costs and burden of responsibility on researchers, and risks (physical or psychological). However, we found little discussion about the involvement of minors in decisions about disclosure of IFs in the brain, especially for IFs of low clinical significance. In response, we propose a framework for managing IFs that integrates practical considerations with explicit appreciation of rights along the continuum of maturity. This capacity-adjusted framework emphasizes the importance of involving competent minors and respecting their right to make decisions about disclosure.

Genetics specialists' perspectives on disclosure of genomic incidental findings in the clinical setting

OBJECTIVE

Evidence documenting management of incidental findings (IFs) from clinical genomic testing is limited. The aim of this study was to examine genetics specialists' perspectives regarding current and preferred disclosure of clinical genomic IFs.

METHODS

50 genetics specialists, including medical geneticists, laboratory professionals, genetic counselors, and nurses participated in structured telephone interviews. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Most specialists had encountered IFs, but definitions of IFs varied. They discussed challenges with informing patients about the prospect of IFs and disclosing IFs to patients. Causing psychological harm to patients was a concern. Participants were divided on whether IFs needed to be clinically significant and/or actionable in order to be disclosed to patients. Creating formal disclosure guidelines was considered useful, but only if they were flexible. Additional counseling, more interdisciplinary communication, maintaining contact with patients, and a centralized database to interpret IFs were also proposed.

CONCLUSION

Genetics specialists offer insights into the challenges of defining IFs, knowing when and how to disclose them, and the potential need for flexible disclosure guidelines.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Further discussion between practicing genetics specialists is needed to develop consensus on the development of best-practice guidelines for IF management.

Neuroethical issues in clinical neuroscience research

In this chapter, we use the special features of neuroimaging to illustrate research ethics issues for the clinical neurologic sciences, and focus on one particularly compelling case: studies involving first-episode schizophrenic treatment-naïve individuals (FESTNIs) (Eijkholt et al., 2012). FESTNIs are scanned prior to the administration of medication in order to control for the confounding effects of treatment. By concentrating on this program of research, we capture the distinctive ethical challenges associated with neuroimaging research overall, and foreground the issues particular to neuroimaging research involving FESTNIs that have yet to receive sufficient attention in the literature. We highlight assessment of risks and burdens, including risks associated with treatment delays and incidental findings; assessment of benefit, including direct benefit, social value, and scientific quality; subject selection; justice questions related to responsiveness and poststudy access; and, finally, issues related to consent and capacity.

The ethics of surgically invasive neuroscience research

A clear understanding of distinctions and definitions is necessary before determining which types of surgically invasive neuroscience research should be permitted and how the experimental protocols can properly be undertaken. A failure to clarify the ethical distinctions in invasive neuroscience research hinders attempts at ethical analysis and guidance. At least four main distinctions need to be addressed: "invasiveness" as an important moral characteristic; special brain-mind-related risks; research participant selection; and ideologic interpretation of human function. Harm and not invasiveness is the metric by which to measure the ethical permissibility of research. Because of a class of harms to minds and selves, special attention should be paid to value considerations. These considerations need to be addressed by researchers, funders, and review boards to create proper safeguards from conception of research through final application of results.

Incidental Findings in Neuroimaging: Ethical and Medicolegal Considerations

With the rapid advances in neurosciences in the last three decades, there has been an exponential increase in the use of neuroimaging both in basic sciences and clinical research involving human subjects. During routine neuroimaging, incidental findings that are not part of the protocol or scope of research agenda can occur and they often pose a challenge as to how they should be handled to abide by the medicolegal principles of research ethics. This paper reviews the issue from various ethical (do no harm, general duty to rescue, and mutual benefits and owing) and medicolegal perspectives (legal liability, fiduciary duties, Law of Tort, and Law of Contract) with a suggested protocol of approach.

Pediatric incidental brain tumors: a growing treatment dilemma

OBJECT

Rising numbers of MRI studies performed during evaluations for pediatric disorders have contributed to a significant increase in the number of incidentally found brain tumors. Currently, there is very little literature on the nature of and the preferred treatment for these incidental brain tumors. In this paper the authors review their experience diagnosing and treating these lesions in children as well as the current literature on this topic.

METHODS

Records from 2 centers were reviewed for incidentally found brain tumors, treatment approaches, and outcomes for both surgical and nonsurgical cohorts.

RESULTS

Forty-seven children (30 males and 17 females) with a mean age of 8.6 years were found to have incidental brain lesions suspected to be neoplasms. Twenty-five underwent surgery and 22 were observed. Two children in the observation group required surgery at a later stage. Tumor pathology in 24 patients was benign. Only 3 patients had high-grade tumors. All nonsurgically treated lesions were presumed to be low-grade tumors and were followed up for 25 ± 20 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The discovery of incidental brain tumors on MRI in children poses an increasing challenge. Additional studies are needed to determine the significance as well as the optimal management strategies in this situation.

Incidental findings of mass lesions on neuroimages in children

Increasing use of neuroimaging in children has led to more incidental findings of CNS mass lesions, the management of which is uncertain. The authors' aims in this study are to describe these mass lesions and their evolution, as well as to discuss the management options and determine the prevalence of incidental CNS mass lesions at their pediatric clinic. A retrospective study was undertaken in children with primary CNS tumors who were younger than 18 years old and were admitted to the University Children's Hospital of Zurich, Switzerland, between January 1995 and December 2010. In 19 (5.7%) of 335 patients with newly diagnosed CNS tumors, the diagnosis of a CNS mass lesion was an incidental finding. Reasons for obtaining neuroimages in these 19 patients were head trauma (in 6 patients); research protocols (in 3); nasal/orbital malformations (in 2); endocrinological and psychiatric evaluations (in 2); and vertebral bone anomaly without neurological signs, absence seizures, congenital ataxia, recurrent vomiting, developmental delay, and "check-up" at the explicit request of the parents (in 1 patient each). Seven patients underwent immediate surgery for low-grade glioma (4 patients) and craniopharyngioma, ependymoma, and choroid plexus papilloma (1 patient each); and 12 were treated conservatively or were observed. Ten of 12 conservatively treated patients remained stable (median follow-up time 1.8 years) and the other 2 underwent delayed surgery because of tumor progression (medulloblastoma in one patient and fibrillary astrocytoma in the other). Clinicians are increasingly challenged by the discovery of incidental CNS mass lesions. A subgroup of such lesions (with typical imaging patterns such as tectal glioma and dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor) can be monitored conservatively, clinically, and radiographically. Future prospective studies are needed to define optimal management strategies based on larger collections of natural histories, as well as to assess the true prevalence of incidental CNS mass lesions.

Incidental findings in brain MRI research: what do we owe our subjects?

Concern regarding incidental findings on brain MRI studies has been increasing with the growing use of MRI as tool for scientific investigation. In this article, the authors provide an overview of possible approaches to address incidental findings. Incidental findings are surprisingly common (5%-20% of all examinations), although the percentage of clinically serious abnormalities is low (0.3%-3.4%). At present, there is no consensus concerning the optimal strategy on how to deal with incidental findings, in particular how to fulfill ethical responsibilities appropriately within the constraints of available resources. There are a variety of responses possible, and currently, reasonable guidelines exist for formulating a plan tailored to the needs of each institution that will meet the reasonable expectations of subjects participating in brain research studies.

Legal liability and research ethics boards: the case of neuroimaging and incidental findings

Neuroimaging research covers a wide range of intriguing issues from revealing brain structures to investigating what happens in our brain when we lie. The field appears to be thriving, but skepticism and alertness to the various ethical, scientific, policy and philosophical challenges associated with it also appear to be on the rise. One particularly complex issue concerns what to do with incidental findings that emerge during the course of neuroimaging research. Research ethics boards (REBs) play a central role in research oversight. In this paper, we will consider some of the potential issues associated with REB liability in negligence in the context of incidental findings in neuroimaging research.

Incidental findings in neuroimaging research: a framework for anticipating the next frontier

While strategies for handling unusual and possibly clinically significant anatomical findings on brain scans of research volunteers have been developed and implemented across neuroimaging laboratories worldwide, few concrete steps have been taken to consider the next frontier: functional anomalies. Drawing on the genetics literature, early work in neuroimaging considered actionability to be a driving force for determining if and when findings should be disclosed to individuals in whom they are detected, as inherent uncertainty raises potential ethical dilemmas of misdiagnosing and mislabelling people as patients. Here we consider the possibility of incidental findings in brain function during the resting state. Our approach does not anchor the resting state as the sine qua non of functional incidental findings, but as a path to thinking about where they may emerge in the future and how our professional communities need to think about thinking about them. We suggest that considering the issues proactively today, within a framework that is maximally flexible and open to modification, is better than responding reactively after the fact and with no framework at all. We argue that there is a duty to consider possible incidental findings despite the ambiguities of data interpretation, while working hard to prevent unnecessary alarm.

How to keep your integrity when performing sponsored (imaging) trials

The broadening of imaging capabilities and the increasing capacity of imaging to quantitate biologic processes has increased industry interest in using imaging methods in new drug development. Investigators participating in industry-sponsored trials should be aware of how such trials differ from investigator-initiated, grant-funded research. In particular, investigators should be cognizant of possible ethical conflicts in the care of patients, the development and analysis of data, and issues related to the dissemination of results.

Ethical issues in naturalistic versus controlled trials

Ethical core issues in research with human subjects are related to informed consent and risk-benefit assessment. This is valid for all types of studies. However, there has been much greater focus of ethical considerations on controlled clinical trials than on naturalistic trials, probably because the former are interventional in nature and may have unknown and perhaps severe somatic risks, whereas naturalistic studies seem not to intervene but only to observe, and therefore are assumed to have fewer or almost no risks. However, there are also ethical implications in naturalistic trials, although their weight is differently accentuated, more with potential, more with potential psychological burdens of the observational procedures and more with potential physical risks in interventional trials. This will be elaborated with examples of placebo-controlled trials and of incidental findings in screenings, of marketing influences on observational studies, and of psychological burdens by survey interviews. The ethical implications will be analyzed within a more general framework. Finally, recommendations will be offered.

A canadian perspective on ethics review and neuroimaging: tensions and solutions

Neuroimaging research has raised ethical concerns such as the management of unexpected findings and the classification and assessment of risks. Research ethics boards (REBs) bear responsibility for the oversight of these challenges but neuroimagers struggle with the practical aspects of ethics review and report that administrative load and inconsistency contribute to eroding confidence and trust in ethics review. Our goal was to discuss and propose strategies for institutional and educational change to improve ethics review. We used an iterative and deliberative workshop-based writing process involving multiple disciplines. We propose recommendations in three tension areas: (1) communication between researchers and REBs; (2) collaboration and sharing of expertise between REBs; and (3) practical considerations and the needs of neuroimagers engaged in the ethics review process. Our recommendations are intended as openings rather than endpoints. Researchers and research ethics governance communities should decide on the future uptake of these recommendations.