title: [Incidental radiological findings].
abstract: All findings which arise in the context of radiological diagnostics, potentially affect the health of a subject but with no intention to detect the corresponding finding are considered to be incidental radiological findings (IF). The prevalence of IFs is increasing due to the wider use of modern imaging techniques, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) in routine clinical practice and the inclusion of imaging, such as whole body MRI in large population-based cohorts. The reporting of radiological IFs can lead to further diagnostics and treatment. The management of IFs in the clinical routine is regulated by the guidelines of the various academic societies. The management of IFs in the setting of research studies differs depending on various factors, such as study design and health status of enrolled subjects. In general, IFs must be disclosed to the subject if the radiological IFs are potentially clinically relevant; however, subjects must also be protected from the consequences of false positive findings. This review article discusses radiological IFs in the setting of the clinical routine and research studies and provides a basic summary of the management recommendations for commonly occurring IFs.
authors.affiliation: Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland, sabine.weckbach@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Weckbach
authors.forename: C L
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Schlett
authors.forename: R C
authors.initials: RC
authors.lastname: Bertheau
authors.forename: H-U
authors.initials: HU
authors.lastname: Kauczor
mesh_terms: D003951:Diagnostic Errors / Q000517:prevention & control*; D003952:Diagnostic Imaging / Q000379:methods*; D003955:Diagnostic Tests, Routine / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D033162:Incidental Findings
references.citation: J Am Coll Radiol. 2013 Nov;10(11):833-9
references.pmid: 24183552
references.citation: Radiology. 2005 Nov;237(2):395-400
references.pmid: 16244247
references.citation: Radiology. 2010 Sep;256(3):943-54
references.pmid: 20505067
references.citation: Eur J Epidemiol. 2009;24(9):553-72
references.pmid: 19728115
references.citation: BMJ. 2009 Aug 17;339:b3016
references.pmid: 19687093
references.citation: J Am Coll Radiol. 2013 Sep;10(9):675-81
references.pmid: 24007607
references.citation: Am J Epidemiol. 2002 Nov 1;156(9):871-81
references.pmid: 12397006
references.citation: J Am Coll Radiol. 2013 Dec;10(12):953-6
references.pmid: 24295947
references.citation: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013 May 28;15:46
references.pmid: 23714095
references.citation: Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2012 Jun;55(6-7):790-4
references.pmid: 22736157
references.citation: J Law Med Ethics. 2008 Summer;36(2):219-48, 211
references.pmid: 18547191
references.citation: Radiology. 2008 Oct;249(1):16-31
references.pmid: 18796665
references.citation: Radiology. 2013 Jan;266(1):304-17
references.pmid: 23070270
references.citation: J Am Coll Radiol. 2010 Oct;7(10):754-73
references.pmid: 20889105
references.citation: J Law Med Ethics. 2008 Summer;36(2):361-83, 214
references.pmid: 18547206
references.citation: J Am Coll Radiol. 2011 Nov;8(11):762-7
references.pmid: 22051458
references.citation: Br J Radiol. 2010 Apr;83(988):276-89
references.pmid: 20335439
references.citation: Radiology. 2005 Dec;237(3):794-800
references.pmid: 16304103
references.citation: Radiology. 2003 Nov;229(2):340-6
references.pmid: 14500855
references.citation: Am J Epidemiol. 2007 Jun 1;165(11):1328-35
references.pmid: 17372189
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 1;357(18):1821-8
references.pmid: 17978290
references.citation: Eur Radiol. 2013 Mar;23(3):816-26
references.pmid: 22911290
references.citation: J Am Coll Radiol. 2013 Oct;10(10):789-94
references.pmid: 24091049
references.citation: J Urol. 1997 May;157(5):1852-3
references.pmid: 9112545