Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the activities, motivations, and attitudes of radiologists regarding specific computed tomographic (CT) screening examinations by using a survey.

Materials and Methods: All study activities were approved by the institutional review board. A self-administered, mailed survey was used to collect data on the practices and attitudes of U.S. radiologists regarding three CT screening tests—coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS), lung cancer screening CT, and whole-body screening CT. The survey was sent to 1000 diagnostic radiologists who were randomly sampled from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile.

Results: A total of 398 (41.4%) of 961 eligible radiologists completed the survey. Among respondents, 33.6% reported reading CT screening studies, the most common being CACS (26.7%), followed by lung screening (19.2%) and whole-body screening (9.5%). Among respondents, 34.1% supported CACS and 29.9% supported lung CT screening for particular patients, while 1.9% supported whole-body CT screening. The most common reasons reported for reading CT screening studies were responses to requests from physicians (83.3%) or patients (75.0%), while fewer (40.8%) cited patient benefit from screening as a reason.

Conclusion: A substantial proportion of a nationally representative sample of radiologists in the United States reads CT screening studies of the heart, lungs, and whole body and holds favorable attitudes toward CACS and lung CT screening. These attitudes may allow for the premature diffusion of new screening tests into practice before higher-level evidence demonstrates their benefits for population mortality.

References

1 Morrison A. Screening in chronic disease. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1992. Google Scholar
2 Black WC, Welch HG. Screening for disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168: 3–11. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
3 Kopans DB, Monsees B, Feig SA. Screening for cancer: when is it valid?—lessons from the mammography experience. Radiology 2003;229:319–327. Link, Google Scholar
4 Illes J, Fan E, Koenig BA, Raffin TA, Kann D, Atlas SW. Self-referred whole-body CT imaging: current implications for health care consumers. Radiology 2003;228:346–351. Link, Google Scholar
5 Kalish GM, Bhargavan M, Sunshine JH, Forman HP. Self-referred whole-body imaging: where are we now? Radiology 2004;233:353–358. Link, Google Scholar
6 Lee TH, Brennan TA. Direct-to-consumer marketing of high-technology screening tests. N Engl J Med 2002;346:529–531. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
7 Hillman BJ. CT screening: who benefits and who pays. Radiology 2003;228:26–28. Link, Google Scholar
8 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Cancer screening recommendations. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfix.htm. Accessed November 2004. Google Scholar
9 American College of Radiology. Position statement on full-body CT screening. http://www.acr.org. Accessed December 2004. Google Scholar
10 Illes J, Kann D, Karetsky K, et al. Advertising, patient decision making, and self-referral for computed tomographic and magnetic resonance imaging. Arch Intern Med 2004;164:2415–2419. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
11 Brenner DJ, Elliston CD. Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology 2004;232:735–738. Link, Google Scholar
12 Stanley RJ. Inherent dangers in radiologic screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:989–992. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
13 Hunink MG, Gazelle GS. CT screening: a trade-off of risks, benefits, and costs. J Clin Invest 2003;111:1612–1619. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
14 Fenton JJ, Deyo RA. Patient self-referral for radiologic screening tests: clinical and ethical concerns. J Am Board Fam Pract 2003;16:494–501. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
15 Welch HG. Should I be tested for cancer? maybe not and here's why. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 2004. Google Scholar
16 Brant-Zawadzki M. CT screening: why I do it. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:319–326. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
17 Brant-Zawadzki MN. Screening on demand: potent of a revolution in medicine. Diagn Imaging (San Franc) 2000;22:25–27. Google Scholar
18 Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Libby DM, Pasmantier MW, Smith JP, Miettinen OS. Survival of patients with stage I lung cancer detected on CT screening. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1763–1771. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
19 Kolata G. Rapid rise and fall for body-scanning clinics. New York Times. January 23, 2005. Google Scholar
20 Sunshine JH, Lewis RS, Bhargavan M. A portrait of interventional radiologists in the United States. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:1103–1112. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
21 Bhargavan M, Sunshine JH. Workload of radiologists in the United States in 2002–2003 and trends since 1991–1992. Radiology 2005;236:920–931. Link, Google Scholar
22 O'Rourke RA, Brundage BH, Froelicher VF, et al. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Expert Consensus document on electron-beam computed tomography for the diagnosis and prognosis of coronary artery disease. Circulation 2000;102:126–140. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
23 Greenland P, LaBree L, Azen SP, Doherty TM, Detrano RC. Coronary artery calcium score combined with Framingham score for risk prediction in asymptomatic individuals. JAMA 2004;291:210–215. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
24 Greenland P, Bonow RO, Brundage BH, et al. ACCF/AHA 2007 clinical expert consensus document on coronary artery calcium scoring by computed tomography in global cardiovascular risk assessment and in evaluation of patients with chest pain: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Clinical Expert Consensus Task Force. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:378–402. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
25 Hartman TE, Swensen SJ. CT screening for lung cancer. Semin Roentgenol 2005;40:193–196. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
26 Swensen SJ, Jett JR, Hartman TE, et al. CT screening for lung cancer: 5-year prospective experience. Radiology 2005;235:259–265. Link, Google Scholar
27 Black C, Bagust A, Boland A, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer: systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess 2006;10:iii–iv, ix–x, 1–90. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
28 National Cancer Institute National Lung Screening Trial. http://www.cancer.gov/nlst. Accessed November 2007. Google Scholar
29 Ganti AK, Mulshine JL. Lung cancer screening. Oncologist 2006;11:481–487. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
30 Strauss GM, Dominioni L, Jett JR, Freedman M, Grannis FW Jr. Como international conference position statement: lung cancer screening for early diagnosis 5 years after the 1998 Varese conference. Chest 2005;127:1146–1151. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
31 Furtado CD, Aguirre DA, Sirlin CB, et al. Whole-body CT screening: spectrum of findings and recommendations in 1192 patients. Radiology 2005;237:385–394. Link, Google Scholar
32 Beinfeld MT, Wittenberg E, Gazelle GS. Cost-effectiveness of whole-body CT screening. Radiology 2005;234:415–422. Link, Google Scholar
33 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Whole body scanning using computed tomography. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/. Accessed August 2002. Google Scholar
34 Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Featured report: commercialized medical screening (A-03). http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13628.html. Accessed July 2003. Google Scholar
35 Hall FM, Casola G, Sirlin CB, Furtado CD, Aguirre DA, Brown MA. Callback and follow-up guidelines for whole-body CT screening. Radiology 2006;241:627–629. Link, Google Scholar
36 Iglehart JK. The new era of medical imaging: progress and pitfalls. N Engl J Med 2006;354:2822–2828. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2008

Vol. 248, No. 1

Metrics

Downloaded 221 times

Altmetric Score