Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published online before print May 9, 2006, 10.1148/radiol.2401051129
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2401051129v1
240/1/246    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gladish, G. W.
Right arrow Articles by Munden, R. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gladish, G. W.
Right arrow Articles by Munden, R. F.
(Radiology 2006;240:246-255.)
© RSNA, 2006


Thoracic Imaging

Incidental Pulmonary Emboli in Oncology Patients: Prevalence, CT Evaluation, and Natural History1

Gregory W. Gladish, MD, Du Hwan Choe, MD, Edith M. Marom, MD, Bradley S. Sabloff, MD, Lyle D. Broemeling, PhD and Reginald F. Munden, DMD, MD

1 From the Departments of Diagnostic Radiology (G.W.G., E.M.M., B.S.S., R.F.M.) and Biostatistics (L.D.B.), University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Box 57, Houston, TX 77030; and Department of Radiology, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Seoul, Korea (D.H.C.). Received July 7, 2005; revision requested September 8; revision received September 27; accepted October 18; final version accepted December 14. Address correspondence to G.W.G. (e-mail: ggladish{at}mdanderson.org).

Purpose: To retrospectively determine the prevalence and natural history of incidental pulmonary emboli in oncology patients, the number of such cases reported at initial thoracic computed tomographic (CT) image interpretation, and the factors that contribute to underdiagnosis.

Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approval, which included HIPAA-compliant access to protected health information and waived patient consent requirements, was obtained for this retrospective study. Four hundred three consecutive oncology patients (199 male, 204 female; age range, 14–87 years; mean age, 55 years) in whom adequate-quality multidetector thoracic CT was performed within a 10-day period for indications other than pulmonary emboli assessment were identified. There were 31 (7.7%) inpatients at the time of imaging. Each imaging case was reviewed by two independent radiologists, and all pulmonary emboli were confirmed by a panel of three thoracic radiologists. Clinical charts were reviewed for demographic data, embolus detection, and outcomes up to 2 years after the initial examination. Patient groups were compared by using {chi}2 and one-sided binomial tests.

Results: Sixteen (4.0%) of the 403 patients had pulmonary emboli. The highest prevalences were in patients with gynecologic malignancies (two of 13, 15%) and in those with melanoma (four of 41, 10%). Four (25%) of the 16 patients with emboli were identified at initial clinical CT image interpretation, and all had multiple emboli involving at least the lobar arteries. Missed emboli typically were solitary and involved smaller arteries; no other confounding factors were identified. Six (60%) of 10 patients with emboli who underwent any lower extremity imaging had deep vein thrombosis. With the exception of one patient, who was transferred back to the referring physician and lost to follow-up, all patients with reported pulmonary emboli were treated. Two patients had subsequent embolic events: one death despite treatment and one recurrent embolus in a nontreated patient.

Conclusion: Incidental pulmonary emboli were seen in 16 (4%) oncology patients but were initially reported in only four of them. The small size of involved arteries contributes to the failed detection at initial CT image interpretation, and patients with emboli in these small vessels may have deep vein thrombosis or recurrent emboli.

© RSNA, 2006




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
A. R. Larici, L. Calandriello, F. Maggi, M. Torge, L. Bonomo, G. W. Gladish, D. H. Choe, E. M. Marom, B. S. Sabloff, and R. F. Munden
Prevalence of Incidental Pulmonary Emboli in Oncology Patients
Radiology, December 1, 2007; 245(3): 921 - 922.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
M. Remy-Jardin, M. Pistolesi, L. R. Goodman, W. B. Gefter, A. Gottschalk, J. R. Mayo, and H. D. Sostman
Management of Suspected Acute Pulmonary Embolism in the Era of CT Angiography: A Statement from the Fleischner Society
Radiology, November 1, 2007; 245(2): 315 - 329.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
C. G. Cronin, D. G. Lohan, M. Keane, C. Roche, and J. M. Murphy
Prevalence and Significance of Asymptomatic Venous Thromboembolic Disease Found on Oncologic Staging CT
Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2007; 189(1): 162 - 170.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ThoraxHome page
S. R Desai
Unsuspected pulmonary embolism on CT scanning: yet another headache for clinicians?
Thorax, June 1, 2007; 62(6): 470 - 472.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 2006 by the Radiological Society of North America.