Advertisement

Incidental Findings

  • Patricia Carrascosa
  • Carlos Capuñay
  • Carlos E. Sueldo
  • Juan Mariano Baronio
Chapter

Abstract

One of the distinct characteristics of the virtual studies is the possibility of obtaining images of the pelvic structures, with sufficient quality so as to be evaluated. Because it is an exam done through computed tomography, it possesses all the diagnostic capacity that derives from this method, allowing the observation of lesions located in other organs and structures. In this way, the extra-uterine findings constitute an unavoidable part of the virtual hysterosalpingography (VHSG).

Keywords

Bone Lesion Incidental Finding Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Pelvic Cavity Virtual Colonoscopy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Hellstrom M, Svensson MH, Lasson A. Extracolonic and incidental findings on CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy). AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182:631–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hara AK, Johnson CD, MacCarty RL, et al. Incidental extracolonic findings at CT colonography. Radiology. 2000;215:353–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sosna J, Kruskal JB, Bar-Ziv J, et al. Extracolonic findings at CT colonography. Abdom Imaging. 2005;30:709–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ. Extracolonic findings identified in asymptomatic adults at screening CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:718–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Meiners RJ, et al. Colorectal and extracolonic cancers detected at screening CT colonography in 10,286 asymptomatic adults. Radiology. 2010;255(1):83–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chin M, Mendelson R, Edwards J, et al. Computed tomographic colonography: prevalence, nature and clinical significance of extracolonic findings in a community screening programme. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100(12):2771–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Westbrook JI, Braithwaite J, McIntosh JH. The outcomes for patients with incidental lesions: serendipitous or iatrogenic? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171(5):1193–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR, et al. CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology. 2005;236:3–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krysiewicz S. Infertility in women: diagnostic evaluation with hysterosalpingography and other imaging techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;159(2):253–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mendelson EB, Friedman H, Neiman HL, et al. The role of imaging in infertility management. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1985;144(2):415–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Steinkeler JA, Woodfield CA, Lazarus E, et al. Female infertility: a systematic approach to radiologic imaging and diagnosis. Radiographics. 2009;29(5):1353–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tsili AC, Tsampoulas C, Charisiadi A, et al. Adnexal masses: accuracy of detection and differentiation with multidetector computed tomography. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;110(1):22–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Griffin N, Grant LA, Sala E. Adnexal masses: characterization and imaging strategies. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2010;31(5):330–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walsh JW, Amendola MA, Konerding KF, et al. Computed tomographic detection of pelvic and inguinal lymph-node metastases from primary and recurrent pelvic malignant disease. Radiology. 1980;137(1):157–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Carrascosa
    • 1
  • Carlos Capuñay
    • 1
  • Carlos E. Sueldo
    • 2
  • Juan Mariano Baronio
    • 3
  1. 1.Diagnóstico MaipúBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.CEGYRBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations