Low Yield of Chest Radiography in a Large Tuberculosis Screening Program

Purpose: To assess the frequency and spectrum of abnormalities on routine screening chest radiographs in the pre-employment evaluation of health care workers with positive tuberculin skin test (TST) results. Materials and Methods: The institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study and waived the need for written informed patient consent. Chest radiographic reports of all 2586 asymptomatic individuals with positive TST results who underwent pre-employment evaluation between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2007, were evaluated to determine the frequency of detection of evidence of active tuberculosis (TB) or latent TB infection (LTBI) and the spectrum of imaging findings. All chest radiographs interpreted as positive were reviewed by an experienced board-certified radiologist. If there was a discrepancy between the two readings, a second experienced radiologist served as an independent and final arbiter. Any follow-up chest radiographs or computed tomographic images that had been acquired by employee health services or by the employee's private physician as a result of a suspected abnormality detected at initial screening were also evaluated. Results: Of the 159 (6.1%) chest radiographic examinations that yielded abnormal results, there were no findings that were consistent with active TB. There were 92 cases of calcified granulomas, calcified lymph nodes, or both; 25 cases of apical pleural thickening; 16 cases of fibrous scarring; and 31 cases of noncalcified nodules. All cases of fibrous scarring involved an area smaller than 2 cm(2). All noncalcified nodules were 4 mm in diameter or smaller, with the exception of one primary lung malignancy and one necrotizing granuloma (negative for acid-fast bacilli) that grew Mycobacterium kansasii on culture. Conclusion: Universal chest radiography in a large pre-employment TB screening program was of low yield in the detection of active TB or increased LTBI reactivation risk, and it provided no assistance in deciding which individuals to prioritize for LTBI treatment. (C) RSNA, 2010