- Aad van der Lugt, associate professor of radiology
- 1Department of Radiology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, 3015 CE Rotterdam, Netherlands
- a.vanderlugt{at}erasmusmc.nl
Incidental findings on brain imaging are defined as previously undetected abnormalities of potential clinical relevance that are unexpectedly discovered and unrelated to the purpose of the imaging. Incidental findings are increasingly detected in clinical practice, with screening, and in the research setting. Data on the prevalence of these abnormalities are scarce, the clinical course of the findings is often unknown, and—as a result—the management of such lesions is not clear. As a community, we need to set standards on how to deal with such findings.
In the linked study (doi:10.1136/bmj.b3016), Morris and colleagues systematically reviewed the literature on incidental findings on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and found a prevalence of 0.7% (95% confidence interval 0.47% to 0.98%) for neoplastic lesions including meningeoma (0.3%), and 2.0% (1.1% to 3.1%) for non-neoplastic lesions including aneurysms (0.4%).1 The authors state that they have increased the precision of existing estimates on the prevalence of incidental findings.
However, the findings have merely touched the tip of the iceberg. The 16 included studies were published between 1989 and 2008, and the incidental findings were detected on scanners with different field strengths and using …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27