Home > Riviste > Minerva Stomatologica > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Stomatologica 2017 April;66(2) > Minerva Stomatologica 2017 April;66(2):75-80

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Estratti
Permessi
Per citare questo articolo

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Stomatologica 2017 April;66(2):75-80

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4970.17.03971-1

Copyright © 2016 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

Should incidental findings in diagnostic imaging be reported?

Karina C. PANELLI SANTOS 1, Mariko FUJITA 1, Jefferson X. OLIVEIRA 2, Yoshinobu YANAGI 1, Junichi ASAUMI 1

1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan; 2 Department of Stomatology, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil


PDF


BACKGROUND: Recent improvements in image quality have contributed to an increasing number of incidental findings (IF). Also called as “incidentalomas”, this generic term refers to an entity discovered unexpectedly on an imaging examination performed for other reason. Commonly, normal variants, minor developmental anomalies and imaging artifacts are described as potential pathology. Some IF were reported in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exam of temporomandibular joint (TMJ), including IF in the brain, maxillary sinus, ethmoidal cells, mastoid cells, salivary glands, muscles. The aim of this study is to evaluate the prevalence of IF on MRI of TMJ from Japanese patients.
METHODS: An image archive from 872 patients referred to MRI evaluation due to TMJ symptomatology was assessed. Three experienced radiologists evaluated all images, and the final diagnosis was achieved by consensus. The data regarding IF was recorded, considering only tumor and tumor-like lesions.
RESULTS: A total of 12 (1.38%) of tumor and tumor-like lesions were observed from all 872 MRI exams evaluated. The most frequent lesion was arachnoid cyst (0.45%), followed by neoplastic lesions (0.22%).
CONCLUSIONS: The question “should every IF be reported?” is still difficult to answer. Relevant IF are rare, and radiologists are expected to be reasonable: think about the adverse effects of reporting an IF, and, based on their own judgment, choose for a positive or a negative answer.


KEY WORDS: Incidental findings - Temporomandibular joint - Magnetic resonance imaging - Ethics

inizio pagina