PICTORIAL REVIEW OF INCIDENTAL FINDINGS ON BRAIN IMAGING- LEAVE THEM ALONE, REFER OR FOLLOW

2021 ◽  
pp. 61-64
Author(s):  
Mohammad Shoaib ◽  
Snehal Kose ◽  
Gaurav Pradhan ◽  
Md Asif Iqbal
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Brain Imaging ◽  
Incidental Findings ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Radiology Report ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Pictorial Review ◽  
Cross Sectional Imaging ◽  
Sectional Imaging

The increasing availability of cross-sectional imaging, incredibly magnetic resonance imaging, detects ndings in the patient's scan unrelated to the reason the scan is initially acquired. These ndings refer to the so-called incidental ndings mentioned in the radiology report as "Note made of" without any good impression about their clinical signicance or further management. This type of report leads to anxiety among patients. The radiologist is the rst person to encounter these incidental ndings. Therefore, it is an essential duty of the radiologist to communicate to the clinician about the signicance and urgency/non-urgency of these ndings so that clinicians can decide timely appropriate management. Therefore, this review discusses the prevalence and spectrum of these incidental ndings and the available guidelines for their management.

Painful os cuboideum secundarium. Cross-sectional imaging findings

1996 ◽  
Vol 86 (3) ◽  
pp. 123-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
PM Logan ◽  
DG Connell ◽  
DL Janzen
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Foot Pain ◽  
Imaging Findings ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Imaging Appearance ◽  
Cross Sectional Imaging ◽  
Sectional Imaging

The authors presented the computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging appearances of a painful os cuboideum secundarium. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first report of the cross-sectional imaging appearance of this condition, and serves to underline the utility of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the investigation of foot pain.

scholarly journals Unexpected Angiography Findings and Effects on Management

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Matthew Neill ◽  
Hearns W Charles ◽  
Jonathan S Gross ◽  
Sean Farquharson ◽  
Amy R Deipolyi
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Interventional Procedures ◽  
Diagnostic Workup ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Conventional Angiography ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cross Sectional Imaging ◽  
Sectional Imaging

Despite progress in noninvasive imaging with computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, conventional angiography still contributes to the diagnostic workup of oncologic and other diseases. Arteriography can reveal tumors not evident on cross-sectional imaging, in addition to defining aberrant or unexpected arterial supply to targeted lesions. This additional and potentially unanticipated information can alter management decisions during interventional procedures.

scholarly journals The role of cross-sectional imaging in suspected nasopharyngeal carcinoma

2019 ◽  
Vol 101 (5) ◽  
pp. 325-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Shayah ◽  
L Wickstone ◽  
E Kershaw ◽  
F Agada
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma ◽  
Histological Finding ◽  
Endoscopic Examination ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cross Sectional Imaging ◽  
Sectional Imaging

Introduction Nasopharyngeal carcinoma is a rare neoplasm in the UK. The current gold standard for detection is endoscopic examination under anaesthesia of the nasopharynx with biopsy. Many clinicians are now advocating cross-sectional imaging as the primary investigation. The objective of this study is to evaluate the role of cross-sectional imaging in detecting nasopharyngeal carcinoma and ultimately to avoid unnecessary biopsy. Material and methods This is a retrospective uncontrolled case series review of patients who were investigated for suspected nasopharyngeal carcinoma between 2009 and 2017 at York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. At present, any suspected nasopharyngeal carcinoma requires biopsy. Search terms used were ‘endoscopic biopsy of nasopharynx’, ‘endoscopic examination + biopsy nasopharynx’. The main outcome measures are reported histological and radiological features of malignancy. Only patients who had imaging prior to the biopsy were included. Results A total of 144 patients had endoscopic examination under anaesthesia of the nasopharynx with biopsy. Approximately one-third of these patients had cross-sectional imaging before the biopsy. The study revealed that magnetic resonance imaging had 100% sensitivity and 84% specificity; however, the endoscopic examination under anaesthesia and biopsy had only 88% sensitivity. This is due to a negative histological finding despite radiological characteristics of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in some patients. However, the specificity was 100%. Conclusion The study supports magnetic resonance imaging as the primary investigation in patients with suspected nasopharyngeal carcinoma followed by endoscopic examination under anaesthesia and biopsy in cases with suspicious findings on imaging only.

Does imaging of the olfactory tract change the clinical management of patients with olfactory disturbance? A case series of 100 consecutive patients

2014 ◽  
Vol 128 (9) ◽  
pp. 810-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Powell ◽  
M Reda Elbadawey ◽  
I Zammit-Maempel
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Clinical Management ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Olfactory Dysfunction ◽  
Case Review ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Olfactory Tract ◽  
Cross Sectional Imaging

AbstractBackground:Isolated olfactory dysfunction is a common complaint; the vast majority of cases are benign and untreatable. A common dilemma is whether to image the olfactory tract of affected patients.Methods:A case review of 100 consecutive patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging for the primary complaint of olfactory dysfunction was performed. Patients with a diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis, with or without nasal polyps, were excluded.Results:Magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities that were considered clinically relevant to the presentation of olfactory dysfunction were found in only seven patients (7 per cent). Of these, only one patient (1 per cent) had an abnormality found that altered their clinical management. A comparison of the findings for children (less than 16 years old,n = 5) with those for adults (equal to or more than 16 years old,n = 95) revealed that 4 per cent of adults scanned had olfactory-related pathology diagnosed, as opposed to 60 per cent of children.Conclusion:Cross-sectional imaging may not be necessary in most patients with olfactory dysfunction. Imaging adds little to the patient history and clinical examination findings.

A PSA for Radiologists: Pictorial Review of Incidentalomas on Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanzo A. Ho ◽  
S. Sejal Khara ◽  
David J. Ferguson ◽  
Mohammed F. Mohammed ◽  
Silvia D. Chang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Incidental Findings ◽  
Imaging Study ◽  
Imaging Features ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Patient Anxiety ◽  
Prostate Mri ◽  
Pictorial Review ◽  
Clinically Significant

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate is a powerful and increasingly utilized imaging study for the diagnosis, staging, and surveillance of prostate cancer. With greater adoption by clinicians, it is becoming more common for incidental findings to be first detected on prostate MRI. Inadequate description of clinically significant findings may not prompt appropriate patient management, while over-reporting of indolent findings comes at increased patient anxiety, cost of workup, and iatrogenic risk. This review article aims to improve awareness, review pathophysiology, and present key imaging features of incidental findings seen on prostate MRI, ranging from common to rare and from benign to clinically significant.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document