Abstract
Objective: We make proposals regarding the assessment of abdominal ultrasound (AUS) screening findings and making diagnoses and follow-up recommendations based on them, from our experience of using “Abdominal ultrasound results categories and follow-up guidelines” by Japan Society of Ningen Dock and “Categorized criteria for abdominal ultrasound cancer screening” (Criteria) by Japan Society of Gastrointestinal Cancer Screening.
Methods: 820 AUS screenings were conducted as initial examinations between November 1, 2011 and February 28, 2013. Sonographers made the categorical assessment (CA), and a physician made diagnoses and follow-up recommendations (f/u). The physician then examined an association between the diagnosis, f/u class, and CA.
Results: The CA made by the sonographer was helpful in the diagnosis and f/u made by the physician. A diagnosis of “suspected tumor” was made for Category 4, and “tumor” for Category 5, and a f/u of “D: Need further tests and/or treatment” was given for both categories. For Category 3, the physician gave a f/u based on the diagnosis. For Category 2, many findings did not require any further tests or treatment, but some non-malignant findings, such as abdominal aortic aneurysm, did. For Category 0, some cases required further tests to rule out cancer.
Conclusions: We propose: 1) Adding further important findings to the Criteria, 2) that a sonographer makes the CA, and 3) the physician refers to the CA in making the diagnosis and f/u. In order to improve the accuracy of AUS in the health check-up setting, it is necessary to enhance the sonographer’s skill and knowledge, and inform the physician concerning the use of CA.
