4.7 Article

Incidental Findings on Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Children With Sickle Cell Disease

Journal

PEDIATRICS
Volume 126, Issue 1, Pages 53-61

Publisher

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2009-2800

Keywords

incidental findings; magnetic resonance imaging; brain imaging; children; sickle cell disease

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [U01-NS-042804, K23NS062110]
  2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [K23HL078819]
  3. Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
  4. American Society of Hematology
  5. National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: We describe the prevalence and range of incidental intracranial abnormalities identified through MRI of the brain in a large group of children screened for a clinical trial. METHODS: We included 953 children between 5 and 14 years of age who were screened with MRI of the brain for the Silent Infarct Transfusion Trial. All had sickle cell anemia or sickle beta-null thalassemia. MRI scans were interpreted by 3 neuroradiologists. MRI scans reported to have any abnormality were reviewed by 2 study neuroradiologists. Incidental findings were classified into 4 categories, that is, no, routine, urgent, or immediate referral recommended. Cerebral infarctions and vascular lesions were not considered incidental and were excluded. RESULTS: We identified 63 children (6.6% [95% confidence interval: 5.1%-8.4%]) with 68 incidental intracranial MRI findings. Findings were classified as urgent in 6 cases (0.6%), routine in 25 cases (2.6%), and no referral required in 32 cases (3.4%). No children required immediate referral. Two children with urgent findings underwent surgery in the subsequent 6 months. CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of children, incidental intracranial findings were identified for 6.6%, with potentially serious or urgent findings for 0.6%. Pediatrics 2010;126:53-61

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available