What do "statistically insignificant" liver lesions mean?

[MirkoCrocop]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Don't want to go into unnecessary details, but had a CT abdomen show 2 "statistically insignificant" lesions on the liver (they didn't measure them)-- is this common terminology?

I don't know if you can give me much info just on that, but what are the possibilities when that phrasing is used? Could it just be one of a hundred benign changes (i.e. fatty change, fibrosis, instrument effect)?

I'm not asking for medical advice, just want to know what the radiologist is thinking when he uses the term "statistically insignificant," in regards to a couple liver lesions.

Thanks in advance if you can help!

 

[Shifty B]

Sounds to me as if powerscribe messed up when the radiologist said "clinically insignificant", which would make more sense.

In either case, there are probably just some small hypodensities that had no clinical relevance. That is, they are there but are not worrisome enough to require further investigation or follow-up.

 

[Whisker Barrel Cortex]

Don't want to go into unnecessary details, but had a CT abdomen show 2 "statistically insignificant" lesions on the liver (they didn't measure them)-- is this common terminology?

I don't know if you can give me much info just on that, but what are the possibilities when that phrasing is used? Could it just be one of a hundred benign changes (i.e. fatty change, fibrosis, instrument effect)?

I'm not asking for medical advice, just want to know what the radiologist is thinking when he uses the term "statistically insignificant," in regards to a couple liver lesions.

Thanks in advance if you can help!

A couple of my attendings during my residency used this term. Basically, what they are saying is that the lesions are highly unlikely to be significant. They used them most often on renal lesions that were too small to characterize definitely as cysts, but were "statistically" likely to be cysts, meaning that since just about everyone over the age of 40 seems to have at least one such small cyst, the "statistics" indicate that they will be benign lesions, even if the imaging cannot prove that fact. It is kind of a hedge, but is indicative of the realities of the specificity of imaging these tiny lesions. Even if 99999/100000 will be benign, that means 1 will not be. Still, if they put that in there, I wouldn't be too worried about it. I don't use this term given the ill defined meaning of it.

 

[TheRadiologist]

When the liver has small low densities, you can not be sure they are simple cysts. Most of the time they are simple cysts, but rarely they will turn out to be small metastatic lesions. I do not use that terminology you are quoting, but I am guessing that is what the radiologist intended. Most of the time you do not need to any follow up for these lesions. If the patient has a known primary or the patient is really worried, then you have the option to get a follow-up study in 3-6 months.