A Just Standard: The Ethical Management of Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research

An Equity and Justice-Informed Ethical Framework to Guide Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research

The handling of incidental findings (IFs) in brain imaging studies has been a source of contention among scientists and bioethicists. A conceptual framework informed by diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and distributive justice approaches, namely EUSTICE, is proposed for the ethical handling and reporting of IFs in brain imaging research. I argue that EUSTICE provides a systematic and inclusive approach to addressing the ethical conundrum around IF disclosure and managing IFs proportionately and sensitively in brain imaging research. The EUSTICE framework may have implications for the field of neurosciences or human studies broadly in guiding ethics of IFs in research.

Incidental findings in brain imaging research: spotlight on ethical considerations

Brain imaging has revolutionized our ability to characterize brain structure and function. Since the first use of magnetic resonance imaging in a live human subject in 1977, the use of brain imaging in research and clinical medicine has seen exponential growth. Incidental findings (IFs) in brain imaging research have been a subject of contentious debate regarding the disclosure of IFs to human participants of research. In this paper, ethical considerations, as they apply, to IFs in brain imaging research have been discussed. KEY POINTS: • Ethical considerations merit discussion vis a vis disclosure of incidental findings in brain imaging research.

Incidental Findings Among Youth Participating in Multimodal Imaging Research: Characteristics of Findings and Description of a Management Approach

Research imaging in healthy and clinical youth populations yields incidental findings that require a management strategy. Our primary objective was to document the frequency and nature of incidental findings within a research group integrating multiple imaging modalities. A second objective was to describe the evolution of an approach to handling incidental findings. A case example was included to display the intricacies of some of these scenarios. Youth, ages 13-20 years, with bipolar disorder, familial risk for bipolar disorder, or healthy controls, obtained one or a combination of neuroimaging, cardio-thoracic imaging, retinal imaging, and carotid imaging. All images were systematically reviewed for incidental findings. Overall, of 223 participants (n = 102 healthy controls), 59% (n = 131) had a brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) incidental finding and 27% (n = 60) had at least one incidental brain finding requiring non-urgent follow-up. In addition, of 109 participants with chest/cardiac MRI and carotid ultrasound, 3% (n = 3) had chest findings, 2% (n = 2) had cardiac findings, and 1% (n = 1) had a carotid finding. Of 165 youth with retinal imaging, 1% (n = 2) had incidental findings. While the vast majority of these incidental findings were of a non-serious, non-urgent nature, there were noteworthy exceptions. Imaging research groups need a system that emphasizes the value of clinical review of research images and one that is collaborative and responsive in order to inform follow-up plans. Rating systems that have been developed and used in neuroimaging for the classification of incidental findings can be adapted for use in areas other than the brain. Regardless of severity, incidental findings may raise anxiety in youth participants and their parents. The optimal threshold is one that balances transparency with utility.