Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Zufallsbefunde

Befundung, Managementempfehlungen und rechtliche Überlegungen

Incidental findings

Evaluation, management recommendations and legal considerations

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Radiologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Zufallsbefunde sind Befunde, die neben der eigentlichen klinischen Verdachtsdiagnose bzw. Fragestellung des Zuweisers im Rahmen der Auswertung radiologischer Verfahren erhoben werden. Die klinische Implikation solcher Zufallsbefunde kann sehr unterschiedlich sein, z. B. eine blande Nierenzyste oder eine tumorsuspekte, abklärungsbedürftige Raumforderung. Eine entsprechende Kategorisierung der Befunde ist daher sinnvoll. Die Sicherstellung der Dokumentation und Kommunikation klinisch-relevanter Zufallsbefunde ist Teil des radiologischen Befundungsprozesses. Damit können medikolegale Risiken reduziert werden. Zukünftig können standardisierte, IT-unterstützte Abläufe hierbei hilfreich sein, entsprechende Entwicklungen werden aktuell beispielsweise von der Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE) verfolgt.

Abstract

Incidental findings are part of the routine radiological reporting workflow and describe findings which are not primarily the focus of the clinical context or the request of the referring physician. The clinical implications of such incidental findings can be very different, for example simple renal cysts or space-occupying lesions suspected of being tumors. A categorization of clinical findings according to the clinical relevance is therefore recommended. Documentation and communication of clinically relevant incidental findings are a part of the radiological reporting process and essential for reduction of the medicolegal risk. Future information technology-assisted developments, e. g. the Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE) profiles, will help to standardize such workflows.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  1. Baumann T, Hackländer T, Kotter E (2014) Befundung in der Radiologie heute. Radiologe 54:45–52

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Berland LL, Silverman SG, Gore RM et al (2010) Managing incidental findings on abdominal CT: white paper of the ACR incidental findings committee. J Am Coll Radiol 7:754–773

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Berlin L (2015) Communicating nonroutine radiologic findings to the ordering physician: will (should) information technology-assisted communication replace direct voice contact? Radiology 277:332–336

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Berlin L (2009) Communicating results of all outpatient radiologic examinations directly to patients: the time has come. Am J Roentgenol 192:571–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berlin L (2011) The incidentaloma: a medicolegal dilemma. Radiol Clin North Am 49:245–255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Berlin L (2011) Informing patients about risks and benefits of radiology examinations utilizing ionizing radiation: a legal and moral dilemma. J Am Coll Radiol 8:742–743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Berlin L (2010) Mock trial at 2009 RSNA Annual Meeting: jury exonerates radiologist for failure to communicate abnormal finding – but... Radiology 257:836–845

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Berlin L, Murphy DR, Singh H (2014) Breakdowns in communication of radiological findings: an ethical and medico-legal conundrum. Diagnosis (Berl) 1:263–268

    Google Scholar 

  9. Berlin L, Sosna J, Halevy D (2016) Radiologist found liable for malpractice in Israel for causing a patient’s suicide by sending a „bad news“ report: can this happen in the united states? Am J Roentgenol 208(2):241–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Boland GW, Enzmann DR, Duszak R Jr. (2014) Actionable reporting. J Am Coll Radiol 11:844–845

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown SD (2013) Professional norms regarding how radiologists handle incidental findings. J Am Coll Radiol 10:253–257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cronan JJ (2008) Thyroid nodules: is it time to turn off the US machines? Radiology 247:602–604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Das M, Wildberger JE (2016) Diagnostics of acute pulmonary embolism : an update. Radiologe 56:543–556

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ding A, Eisenberg JD, Pandharipande PV (2011) The economic burden of incidentally detected findings. Radiol Clin North Am 49:257–265

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Eisenberg RL, Fleischner S (2013) Ways to improve radiologists’ adherence to Fleischner Society guidelines for management of pulmonary nodules. J Am Coll Radiol 10:439–441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Epstein RM, Korones DN, Quill TE (2010) Withholding information from patients – when less is more. N Engl J Med 362:380–381

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Glazer HS, Weyman PJ, Sagel SS et al (1982) Nonfunctioning adrenal masses: incidental discovery on computed tomography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 139:81–85

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW et al (2013) ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 15:565–574

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Hall WB, Truitt SG, Scheunemann LP et al (2009) The prevalence of clinically relevant incidental findings on chest computed tomographic angiograms ordered to diagnose pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med 169:1961–1965

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hosten N (2015) Kommentar zur Teleradiologie: Tupfer, Spritze, Röntgenbild? Fortschr Röntgenstr 187:2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Johnson PT, Horton KM, Megibow AJ et al (2011) Common incidental findings on MDCT: survey of radiologist recommendations for patient management. J Am Coll Radiol 8:762–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Larson PA, Berland LL, Griffith B et al (2014) Actionable findings and the role of IT support: report of the ACR Actionable Reporting Work Group. J Am Coll Radiol 11:552–558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ley S, Ley-Zaporozhan J (2015) Fehlbildungen von Herz und Gefäßen. Radiologe 55:570–579

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Macmahon H, Austin JH, Gamsu G et al (2005) Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology 237:295–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Orme NM, Fletcher JG, Siddiki HA et al (2010) Incidental findings in imaging research: evaluating incidence, benefit, and burden. Arch Intern Med 170:1525–1532

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Pandharipande PV, Herts BR, Gore RM et al (2016) Rethinking normal: benefits and risks of not reporting harmless incidental findings. J Am Coll Radiol 13:764–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pinto Dos Santos D, Hempel JM, Kloeckner R et al (2014) Teleradiologie – Update 2014. Radiologe 54:487–490

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Weckbach S, Schlett CL, Bertheau RC et al (2014) Der radiologische Zufallsbefund. Internist (Berl) 55:1019–1025

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Zafar HM, Bugos EK, Langlotz CP et al (2016) „Chasing a ghost“: factors that influence primary care physicians to follow up on incidental imaging findings. Radiology 281:567–573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsmedizin der Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Deutschland

    P. Mildenberger

Authors
  1. P. Mildenberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Mildenberger.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

P. Mildenberger gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine vom Autor durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mildenberger, P. Zufallsbefunde. Radiologe 57, 302–308 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-017-0227-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-017-0227-x

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation