The PROgnostic Value of unrequested Information in Diagnostic Imaging (PROVIDI) Study: rationale and design

We describe the rationale for a new study examining the prognostic value of unrequested findings in diagnostic imaging. The deployment of more advanced imaging modalities in routine care means that such findings are being detected with increasing frequency. However, as the prognostic significance of many types of unrequested findings is unknown, the optimal response to such findings remains uncertain and in many cases an overly defensive approach is adopted, to the detriment of patient-care. Additionally, novel and promising image findings that are newly available on many routine scans cannot be used to improve patient care until their prognostic value is properly determined. The PROVIDI study seeks to address these issues using an innovative multi-center case-cohort study design. PROVIDI is to consist of a series of studies investigating specific, selected disease entities and clusters. Computed Tomography images from the participating hospitals are reviewed for unrequested findings. Subsequently, this data is pooled with outcome data from a central population registry. Study populations consist of patients with endpoints relevant to the (group of) disease(s) under study along with a random control sample from the cohort. This innovative design allows PROVIDI to evaluate selected unrequested image findings for their true prognostic value in a series of manageable studies. By incorporating unrequested image findings and outcomes data relevant to patients, truly meaningful conclusions about the prognostic value of unrequested and emerging image findings can be reached and used to improve patient-care

Unrequested Findings on Cardiac Computed Tomography: Looking Beyond the Heart

Objectives: To determine the prevalence of clinically relevant unrequested extra-cardiac imaging findings on cardiac Computed Tomography (CT) and explanatory factors thereof. Methods: A systematic review of studies drawn from online electronic databases followed by meta-analysis with metaregression was performed. The prevalence of clinically relevant unrequested findings and potentially explanatory variables were extracted (proportion of smokers, mean age of patients, use of full FOV, proportion of men, years since publication). Results: Nineteen radiological studies comprising 12922 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of clinically relevant unrequested findings was 13 % (95 % confidence interval 9–18, range: 3–39%). The large differences in prevalence observed were not explained by the predefined (potentially explanatory) variables. Conclusions: Clinically relevant extra-cardiac findings are common in patients undergoing routine cardiac CT, and their prevalence differs substantially between studies. These differences may be due to unreported factors such as different definitions of clinical relevance and differences between populations. We present suggestions for basic reporting whic