The use of CT for screening: a national survey of radiologists' activities and attitudes.

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.

[1]  Anne-Marie Sykes,et al.  CT screening for lung cancer: five-year prospective experience. , 2005, Radiology.

[2]  S. Swensen,et al.  CT screening for lung cancer. , 2005, Seminars in roentgenology.

[3]  H. Welch,et al.  Screening for disease. , 1997, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  H. Gilbert Welch,et al.  Should I Be Tested for Cancer?: Maybe Not and Here's Why , 2004 .

[5]  David J Brenner,et al.  Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. , 2004, Radiology.

[6]  T. Raffin,et al.  Advertising, patient decision making, and self-referral for computed tomographic and magnetic resonance imaging. , 2004, Archives of internal medicine.

[7]  H. Forman,et al.  Self-referred whole-body imaging: where are we now? , 2004, Radiology.

[8]  S. Feig,et al.  Screening for cancer: when is it valid?--Lessons from the mammography experience. , 2003, Radiology.

[9]  J. Jett,et al.  Como international conference position statement: lung cancer screening for early diagnosis 5 years after the 1998 Varese conference. , 2005, Chest.

[10]  D. Aguirre,et al.  Whole-body CT screening: spectrum of findings and recommendations in 1192 patients. , 2005, Radiology.

[11]  B. Hillman CT screening: who benefits and who pays. , 2003, Radiology.

[12]  T. Raffin,et al.  Self-referred whole-body CT imaging: current implications for health care consumers. , 2003, Radiology.

[13]  R. Stanley Inherent dangers in radiologic screening. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  G. Gazelle,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of whole-body CT screening. , 2005, Radiology.

[15]  Mythreyi Bhargavan,et al.  Workload of radiologists in the United States in 2002-2003 and trends since 1991-1992. , 2005, Radiology.

[16]  G Scott Gazelle,et al.  CT screening: a trade-off of risks, benefits, and costs. , 2003, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[17]  Callback and follow-up guidelines for whole-body CT screening. , 2006, Radiology.

[18]  J. Iglehart,et al.  The new era of medical imaging--progress and pitfalls. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  M. Brant-Zawadzki CT screening: why I do it. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[20]  Rebecca S Lewis,et al.  A portrait of interventional radiologists in the United States. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[21]  T. Brennan,et al.  Direct-to-consumer marketing of high-technology screening tests. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  V F Froelicher,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. , 2000, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[23]  Mark A. Hlatky,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 , 2007 .

[24]  R. Detrano,et al.  Coronary artery calcium score combined with Framingham score for risk prediction in asymptomatic individuals. , 2004, JAMA.

[25]  J. Mandel,et al.  Screening in Chronic Disease , 1985 .

[26]  R. Deyo,et al.  Patient self-referral for radiologic screening tests: clinical and ethical concerns. , 2003, The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice.

[27]  N. Waugh,et al.  The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer: systematic reviews. , 2006, Health technology assessment.

[28]  O. Miettinen,et al.  Survival of Patients with Stage I Lung Cancer Detected on CT Screening , 2008 .

[29]  James L. Mulshine,et al.  Lung cancer screening. , 2006 .