Abstract
•The presence and quantification of moderate to severe incidental CAC was underreported at a major academic center. Failure to report incidental CAC represents a missed opportunity to initiate preventive therapies.•Education of reporting radiologists and changes to the reporting templates significantly improved the reporting and quantification of incidental CAC.•Hospital systems interested in improving the quality of their radiology reporting procedures should examine their practices to assure that CAC quantification is routinely performed.
Current guidelines recommend the reporting of incidental coronary artery calcification (CAC) on non-electrocardigram-gated computed tomography (CT) scans of the chest. The finding of incidental moderate or severe CAC on non-cardiac non-contrast chest CT correlates with a CAC score ≥ 100 Agatston units, a guideline-based indication for a clinician-patient discussion regarding the initiation of statin therapy. In contemporary practice, whether the presence and severity of incidental CAC are routinely reported on such CT scans of the chest is unknown.
At a major university hospital, we collected a one-month convenience sample of 297 patients who had chest CT imaging for indications other than lung cancer screening (OICT) and 42 patients who underwent lung cancer chest CT screening (LSCT). We evaluated reporting patterns of incidental CAC in the body and impression of the reports as compared to the overreading of such studies by a board-certified CT chest radiologist. We hypothesized and demonstrated that there was underreporting of incidental CAC on these scans. We then undertook an initiative to educate reporting radiologists on the importance of reporting CAC and implemented a reporting template change to encourage routine reporting. Then we repeated another one-month sample (n= 363 for the OICT and n= 63 for the LSCT groups) to evaluate reporting patterns following our intervention.
The presence of incidental moderate and severe CAC was systematically underreported in the OICT group (0 and 4.8 %) and the severity was never mentioned in the impression of reports. In the LSCT group, the presence of incidental moderate and severe CAC was also underreported (66.7 % and 75 %) and the severity of CAC was mentioned 50 % of the time in the impression of the reports. Following the initiation of an educational program and radiology reporting template change, there was a significant increase in reporting of moderate or severe CAC in the OICT group (0 vs. 80.0 %, p < 0.001) and (4.8 vs. 93.5 %, p < 0.001) respectively and a significant increase in the reporting of the severity of incidental CAC for those with severe CAC in the LSCT group (50 vs. 94.1 %, p=0.006).
Despite guideline recommendations, incidental CAC was underreported at a large academic center. We implemented a system that significantly improved reporting patterns of incidental CAC. Failure to report incidental CAC represents a missed opportunity to initiate preventive therapies. Hospital systems interested in improving the quality of their radiology reporting procedures should examine their practices to assure that CAC quantification is routinely performed.