Managing Actionable Incidental Imaging Findings in Viet Nam: Risk-Based Recommendations, Follow-Up Ownership and Closed-Loop Tracking

Managing Actionable Incidental Imaging Findings in Viet Nam: Risk-Based Recommendations, Follow-Up Ownership and Closed-Loop Tracking

An imaging examination requested for one clinical problem can reveal something unexpected. A patient undergoing abdominal CT for persistent pain, for example, may have an unrelated abnormality that deserves separate consideration. The original complaint may be assessed, the radiology report finalized and the patient discharged, while the additional finding remains unresolved.

Many incidental imaging findings are harmless and require no further investigation. Others may warrant additional assessment, surveillance or specialist consultation. The difficulty is that these findings often fall outside the original clinical question and may not require immediate intervention. They can therefore be documented in a radiology report without becoming part of a reliable follow-up plan.

This creates a particular challenge for patient safety. A radiologist may identify an important abnormality and recommend further evaluation, yet the recommendation may not reach the clinician responsible for ongoing care. Even when it is received, no one may be clearly accountable for arranging the next step. The imaging interpretation may be accurate, but the potential benefit of detecting the abnormality can still be lost.

The American College of Radiology (ACR) has developed guidance for managing incidental findings and quality measures addressing communication and follow-up. Recent research has also examined how electronic tracking systems, clinical coordination and reporting practices can reduce the risk of important findings being overlooked.

An invited review published in Insights into Imaging on October 25, 2026, titled The Rules of Actionable Reporting, reinforces an important distinction: producing a useful radiology report is only one part of the process. The information must also reach the appropriate clinical professional and support a meaningful decision about patient care.

For healthcare organizations in Viet Nam, the priority is to make this process more reliable without encouraging unnecessary investigations. Doing so requires recommendations proportionate to clinical risk, clearly assigned responsibility for follow-up and a dependable way to establish whether the finding has been appropriately addressed.

Understanding When an Incidental Finding Requires Action

An incidental imaging finding is a lesion or abnormality discovered during an examination performed for a clinical reason unrelated to that finding. Such abnormalities may be identified on CT, MRI, ultrasound, radiography or other imaging examinations.

The term incidental describes how the abnormality was discovered. It does not establish whether the finding is dangerous or clinically important.

An actionable incidental imaging finding is an unexpected abnormality for which further clinical assessment or another appropriate action is warranted based on the information available. Depending on the circumstances, this may involve reviewing previous examinations, additional imaging, clinical evaluation or specialist consultation.

Not every incidental finding is actionable. Equally, an actionable finding does not necessarily indicate malignancy or another serious disease.

Some abnormalities have imaging characteristics that sufficiently establish a benign explanation. Others remain indeterminate but carry such a low likelihood of clinically important disease that further investigation may offer little benefit. Certain findings, however, have characteristics or potential consequences that justify additional evaluation.

The distinction depends on more than imaging appearance alone. Patient age, medical history, clinical risk factors, known malignancy, previous examinations and the purpose of the original investigation may all influence the appropriate response.

An incidentally detected pulmonary nodule, for example, should not automatically lead to the same recommendation for every patient. Its significance depends on the nodule's characteristics, the patient's clinical circumstances and the population for which the relevant guidance was developed. Similarly, an incidental adrenal or renal lesion may not require further investigation when its imaging characteristics and available clinical information adequately support a benign interpretation.

The ACR's incidental findings resources provide algorithm-based recommendations for particular abnormalities and patient populations. Their purpose is to support clinically appropriate decisions, not to encourage investigation of every unexpected finding.

These recommendations have limitations that must be understood. Guidance developed for adults should not automatically be applied to children. The 2026 article A Road Map for Addressing Incidental Findings in Pediatric Radiology, published in the Journal of the American College of Radiology, highlights the need for approaches that account for pediatric circumstances and the limitations of existing evidence.

Similar caution is appropriate for patients with serious underlying illness, limited life expectancy or circumstances in which further investigation is unlikely to change management meaningfully.

A finding initially considered actionable may subsequently require no additional investigation after the treating clinician reviews information unavailable at the time of reporting. That can be an appropriate clinical outcome when the decision is supported by the available evidence and adequately documented.

The important distinction is between a considered decision not to investigate further and an important finding that receives no clinical attention.

An effective incidental-finding management process should recognize both possibilities. Its purpose is to prevent clinically meaningful abnormalities from being overlooked while avoiding unnecessary testing of findings that are unlikely to benefit from further evaluation.

Making Imaging Recommendations Proportionate to Clinical Risk

Not every actionable imaging finding requires an urgent response.

Some abnormalities indicate an immediate or potentially serious threat to health and require prompt communication and clinical assessment. Such findings should be managed through established procedures for urgent or critical results rather than relying solely on a routine tracking registry.

Other findings are clinically relevant but can be evaluated over an appropriate interval. These noncritical findings are particularly vulnerable to missed follow-up because their management may extend beyond the encounter in which they were discovered.

The ACR-led quality measurement initiative published in 2022 specifically addressed noncritical actionable incidental findings. Its purpose was to improve communication and completion of appropriate follow-up for abnormalities that do not require emergency intervention but should not disappear from clinical attention.

A finding that is not urgent can still be important. An abnormality that can safely be reassessed after a defined interval may have meaningful consequences if its evaluation is indefinitely delayed.

The appropriate timeframe should reflect the nature of the finding, the available evidence and the patient's clinical circumstances. Applying the same deadline to every incidental abnormality would fail to account for differences in clinical risk.

The radiology report plays an important role in making that distinction clear.

A useful report should identify the relevant abnormality, describe its important imaging characteristics and communicate the degree of diagnostic uncertainty. When further evaluation is justified, the recommendation should be sufficiently specific about the intended assessment and, where supported, the suggested timeframe.

Specificity matters because vague recommendations can leave clinicians uncertain about what action is expected. A statement that further imaging could be considered, without explaining the relevant concern or circumstances, may not provide enough information to support an appropriate decision.

At the same time, recommendations should not imply greater certainty than the evidence supports. A radiologist may not have access to the patient's complete medical history, previous examinations or treatment priorities. A recommendation that depends on missing information should make that limitation clear.

Comparison with previous imaging can substantially change the assessment. An abnormality that has remained stable over an appropriate period may warrant a different approach from one that is newly identified or changing. Reviewing earlier studies, when available, may prevent unnecessary repeat examinations.

The radiologist contributes expertise about imaging findings and evidence-informed recommendations. The clinician responsible for the patient's care integrates those findings with symptoms, medical history, other investigations, competing health priorities and patient preferences.

A recommendation for additional imaging is therefore not automatically an order that must be carried out. It should receive appropriate clinical consideration.

The October 2026 review The Rules of Actionable Reporting emphasizes the importance of clear reporting, meaningful recommendations and effective communication. These principles are especially relevant to incidental findings, where uncertainty must be expressed accurately without creating confusion or unnecessary diagnostic cascades.

Good reporting makes the next clinical decision easier. It should not automatically generate more testing.

Establishing Clear Responsibility for Follow-Up

One of the most difficult questions in managing actionable incidental findings is who assumes responsibility once the radiology report has been issued.

Within the applicable professional and organizational arrangements, the radiologist is responsible for interpreting the examination and communicating relevant findings appropriately. The clinician responsible for the patient's care is generally positioned to determine how those findings should influence the broader management plan.

In practice, however, the relationship between the imaging service and the treating team may not remain continuous.

A patient may undergo imaging during a hospital admission and subsequently receive care at another facility. The clinician who requested the examination may no longer be involved. A specialist may recommend additional assessment, but the patient may return to a community clinic where the original report is not readily available.

Similar situations arise with outpatient imaging, temporary clinical teams, outsourced radiology reporting and patients who arrange investigations independently.

These circumstances illustrate why follow-up cannot depend solely on the assumption that the original requesting clinician will remain available and responsible.

Healthcare organizations should establish how responsibility is assigned for reviewing and managing actionable incidental findings. Depending on the setting, this may involve the requesting clinician, the treating team, a designated clinical service or another appropriately authorized professional.

When responsibility needs to be transferred, the receiving clinician or service should be identifiable. The relevant finding, recommended consideration and expected next step should be communicated, and the handover should be appropriately documented.

Sending a report or referral to another healthcare organization does not necessarily establish that the receiving organization has accepted responsibility. If this distinction is overlooked, a finding may appear to have been transferred successfully while remaining clinically unresolved.

Organizations also need an escalation process for cases in which no appropriate clinician can be identified, the original physician is unavailable or the expected handover does not occur.

A designated radiology follow-up coordinator, nursing team or clinical quality function may help monitor unresolved findings and facilitate communication. Such arrangements can strengthen continuity, but coordination activities should not replace professional clinical judgment.

A study by Shah and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American College of Radiology in January 2026, examined nine years of an electronic medical record-based incidental-finding reporting protocol.

The program used electronic notifications and a nursing-led follow-up process adapted to different clinical settings and types of findings. During the study period, 25,175 incidental findings were reported. Case-resolution rates exceeded 99% in all but two months after tracking began.

These results demonstrate the feasibility of maintaining a structured tracking program over time and across substantial imaging volumes. However, the reported resolution rates reflect the program's operational outcomes. They do not independently establish that every patient received clinically optimal follow-up or that all subsequent harm was prevented.

The broader lesson is that responsibility for follow-up should be deliberately established rather than left to informal assumptions.

What Closed-Loop Tracking Should Actually Confirm

A finalized radiology report does not establish that an incidental finding has been appropriately managed. Neither does confirmation that the report has been received.

A closed-loop follow-up process should allow the healthcare organization to determine whether a clinically important finding has reached an appropriate disposition and what evidence supports that conclusion.

The process begins when the radiologist identifies an incidental abnormality that may warrant further consideration and records it in the report.

The finding then needs to reach the responsible clinician or clinical service. Where communication beyond routine reporting is necessary, the method and relevant details should be documented.

The next stage is clinical assessment. The responsible professional considers the finding in the context of the patient's circumstances and determines whether further investigation or another action is appropriate.

If additional imaging, specialist consultation or clinical evaluation is needed, the plan should identify the intended action, an appropriate timeframe and responsibility for arranging the next step.

The organization then needs to establish whether the planned action occurred and whether its result was appropriately reviewed and addressed.

These stages are related but not interchangeable.

An appointment being scheduled does not mean that the examination took place. A follow-up CT being performed does not necessarily mean that the new report was reviewed. Similarly, confirming that a referral was sent does not establish that the patient was evaluated by the receiving specialist.

Consider an incidental lesion for which follow-up imaging is recommended. The patient returns for the examination, but the new report identifies a finding requiring additional clinical consideration. The original imaging task may have been completed, yet the diagnostic question may remain unresolved.

The tracking system should therefore distinguish completion of an individual action from appropriate resolution of the clinical issue.

Conversely, an appropriate outcome does not always require the originally recommended investigation.

Additional information may establish that the abnormality was previously assessed, that surveillance is unnecessary or that another management approach is more appropriate. A patient may also decline further evaluation after an appropriate discussion of the potential benefits and risks.

These situations should be documented accurately.

A clinically justified decision not to investigate further is different from a recommendation being forgotten. Informed refusal is different from a patient who cannot be contacted. A confirmed transfer of responsibility is different from a referral sent without evidence that the receiving service has accepted the handover.

A reliable tracking system should preserve these distinctions rather than combining all administratively closed cases into a single measure of successful clinical follow-up.

Cases that remain unresolved, including those involving incomplete information or unsuccessful contact attempts, should be classified transparently. An organization may have undertaken reasonable efforts to contact a patient without being able to confirm what subsequently happened.

The required duration and scope of tracking should also be defined. Closed-loop follow-up does not necessarily mean monitoring every subsequent aspect of a patient's care indefinitely. It means establishing an appropriate disposition for the finding being managed and ensuring that relevant responsibilities have been addressed.

The purpose is not simply to close an electronic task. It is to determine what happened after an actionable finding was reported and whether the outcome was clinically appropriate.

Maintaining Continuity Across Healthcare Settings

The risk of missed follow-up often increases when patients move between departments or healthcare organizations.

A radiology report may be accessible within the hospital where the examination was performed but unavailable to a clinician at another facility. A patient may receive a printed report without understanding that one of its findings requires further discussion. A specialist referral may be issued without confirmation that the consultation occurred.

These problems are particularly relevant when imaging, clinical assessment and longer-term management take place in different settings.

Healthcare organizations in Viet Nam may have different information systems, referral arrangements and follow-up capabilities. Some facilities use integrated electronic records, while others rely on separate reporting, scheduling and clinical documentation systems.

A reliable approach should reflect these differences rather than assume that every organization has access to the same technology.

An electronic tracking platform can improve visibility, but it cannot independently establish that clinical responsibility has been accepted or that a recommended investigation remains appropriate.

For facilities without an integrated system, a controlled registry or worklist may provide a practical starting point.

Such a record can identify the finding, the original recommendation, the responsible clinical service, the relevant review date and the current status. It can also document communication, changes to the management plan and unresolved barriers.

The system should be able to recognize cases that have passed their expected review date without an adequately documented outcome.

An overdue case may require contact with the responsible clinician, reassessment of the patient's circumstances or escalation according to the potential consequences of delay.

Not every overdue item requires the same response. A minor delay involving a low-risk abnormality should not automatically trigger the same level of escalation as a potentially consequential finding requiring more immediate clarification.

Repeated imaging reports can create another problem. If the same abnormality appears in several examinations, a registry may generate multiple independent follow-up tasks unless the records are appropriately linked.

This can contribute to duplicated investigations, confusing reminders and unnecessary workload. A reliable system should maintain visibility of the unresolved clinical question without treating every mention of the same lesion as a separate issue.

Patients also have an important role, particularly when further assessment involves appointments outside the original healthcare facility.

They should receive understandable information about the finding, the degree of uncertainty and the agreed next step. Communication should avoid both unnecessary alarm and false reassurance.

An incidental abnormality may carry a low probability of serious disease, and poorly explained findings can cause considerable anxiety. At the same time, a clinically important recommendation should not be minimized to the point that the patient does not understand why follow-up matters.

Practical barriers can also affect completion. Travel, cost, appointment availability and uncertainty about which facility should provide the next assessment may interfere with an otherwise reasonable plan.

Involving patients in decisions and arrangements can improve continuity. However, responsibility for reliable follow-up should not be transferred entirely to patients.

Telling someone to arrange another scan independently is not, by itself, evidence that the healthcare organization has established a dependable process for managing an important finding.

Patient participation strengthens the process; it does not replace professional and organizational accountability.

Measuring Follow-Up Reliability Without Encouraging Overuse

A follow-up program should be evaluated according to whether it improves the management of clinically important findings, not merely whether it increases the number of completed investigations.

The ACR-led initiative published in 2022 developed nine quality measures for noncritical actionable incidental findings.

The proposed set included four outcome measures, addressing completion of recommended follow-up in defined circumstances and cancer diagnoses, and five process measures concerning the evidentiary basis of recommendations, communication with clinical services and patients, and tracking arrangements.

These measures provide a useful framework for identifying gaps in the follow-up process. Their application depends on the specified populations, measurement definitions and clinical context. They should not be regarded as universal legal requirements or automatically transferable performance targets for healthcare organizations in Viet Nam.

At the organizational level, useful indicators may include the proportion of eligible actionable findings accompanied by sufficiently clear recommendations, the proportion communicated to the appropriate clinical service and the proportion for which an accountable clinician or team has been identified.

Other measures may examine whether a clinically appropriate follow-up plan was documented, whether planned actions occurred within the relevant timeframe and whether overdue cases were reviewed or escalated.

The definitions used for these indicators are as important as the results.

A completion rate calculated only from patients who returned to the same hospital may exclude those who received care elsewhere or were lost to follow-up. Similarly, a measure based only on findings entered into a dedicated registry may overlook important abnormalities that were never registered.

The organization should therefore define its eligible population carefully and understand which cases may be missing from the available data.

Periodic review of selected radiology reports may help determine whether actionable findings are being recognized and entered into the tracking process consistently.

Another important distinction is between follow-up being performed and follow-up being clinically appropriate.

A hospital could increase its apparent completion rate by automatically scheduling additional imaging whenever a recommendation appears in a report. Yet if some recommendations were unnecessary or no longer relevant, the increase in completed examinations might represent overuse rather than safer care.

Additional investigations can have consequences. Repeat imaging may increase costs or radiation exposure, depending on the modality. Contrast administration, invasive procedures and the discovery of further low-risk abnormalities may create additional burdens without necessarily improving outcomes.

A balanced quality program should therefore consider both whether clinically justified follow-up was completed and whether the original recommendation remained appropriate.

This assessment is not always straightforward. Clinical decisions may change after a report is issued. New information may become available, previous imaging may be located, or the patient may make an informed decision not to proceed with additional investigation.

Where alternative management decisions are counted as resolved cases, they should be reported separately from completed imaging examinations. Informed refusal, confirmed transfer of responsibility, inability to contact the patient and unresolved cases should also remain distinguishable.

Operational measures should not be presented as direct evidence of improved patient outcomes unless suitable outcome data are available.

The program should also consider unintended consequences. Excessive notifications may contribute to alert fatigue, while poorly designed reminders may generate repeated investigations of abnormalities that no longer warrant attention.

The purpose of measurement is not to achieve maximum testing or a perfect administrative closure rate. It is to identify missed opportunities for clinically beneficial evaluation while limiting unnecessary care.

Using Technology to Support Reliable Follow-Up

Electronic radiology reporting systems, clinical worklists and hospital information systems can help organizations identify and monitor actionable incidental findings.

Structured reporting fields may make recommendations easier to locate. Notifications can support communication with responsible clinicians, while registries and reminders can help identify cases that remain unresolved.

Automated extraction of information from narrative radiology reports may also support larger healthcare organizations where manual review of every report would be difficult.

However, automated systems can misinterpret the clinical meaning of a recommendation.

A statement in a report may depend on information unavailable to the software. The abnormality may already have been investigated, the patient may have received appropriate follow-up elsewhere, or the proposed examination may no longer be clinically relevant.

An automated system that cannot recognize these circumstances may generate unnecessary alerts.

The opposite problem is also possible. A clinically important finding may be expressed in language that the system does not recognize, allowing a case requiring attention to remain outside the tracking process.

Automated identification should therefore be evaluated for its intended use, including the risk of false-positive and false-negative classification, the accuracy of extracted information and the reliability of subsequent workflows.

Where artificial intelligence is used, its outputs should support appropriately qualified professionals rather than independently determine that a patient requires a particular investigation or treatment.

Organizations should also assess whether automation increases workload, produces excessive notifications or encourages additional investigations without meaningful benefit.

Technology is most useful when it supports a clearly defined clinical process. A sophisticated tracking platform cannot compensate for uncertainty about who is responsible for reviewing a finding or deciding what should happen next.

For some healthcare facilities, a carefully maintained registry and dependable communication procedures may provide more immediate improvement than introducing advanced automation without clear accountability.

Developing an Appropriate Approach for Viet Nam

Managing actionable incidental imaging findings in Viet Nam requires attention to the legal framework, professional responsibilities and practical capabilities of individual healthcare organizations.

The Law on Medical Examination and Treatment No. 15/2023/QH15, as amended and reflected in Consolidated Document No. 26/VBHN-VPQH dated February 26, 2026, provides an important legal framework for medical examination, treatment and associated professional activities.

Article 69 establishes requirements concerning medical records, including their creation, updating, preservation, confidentiality and conditions governing access and use.

These provisions are relevant when imaging findings, subsequent assessments and decisions about follow-up form part of the patient's clinical record.

However, the law should not be interpreted as expressly requiring every healthcare facility to operate an ACR-style incidental-finding tracking system or adopt particular international quality measures.

Healthcare organizations should distinguish obligations established by Vietnamese law from institutional quality improvement arrangements informed by professional guidance and risk assessment.

The ACR's incidental findings recommendations, communication practice parameters and quality measures may support the development of local procedures, but they are not Vietnamese legislation.

Their application should be considered alongside the patient's clinical circumstances, the professional responsibilities of participating clinicians and any separately applicable legal, licensing or accreditation requirements.

Protecting patient information is another important consideration.

Viet Nam's Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15 and its implementing Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP took effect on January 1, 2026.

A follow-up registry may contain identifiable health information, contact details, imaging results, clinical recommendations and records of subsequent care. Healthcare organizations should assess the applicable requirements concerning lawful data processing, confidentiality, access control, information security, disclosure and domestic or international data transfers.

Consent requirements, applicable exceptions and other relevant legal conditions must be considered according to the purpose and circumstances of the processing activity.

Where clinical follow-up involves more than one healthcare organization, appropriate procedures should be established for exchanging necessary information and documenting the transfer or acceptance of clinical responsibility.

Informal communication through inadequately secured channels should not replace authorized clinical information-sharing arrangements.

Implementation should be proportionate to the organization's resources and clinical activities.

A large hospital may establish integrated electronic worklists, designated follow-up coordinators and automated reminders. A smaller facility may begin with a documented process focused on selected noncritical incidental findings that have meaningful potential consequences for patient care.

An initial improvement initiative could concentrate on one or two well-defined categories of abnormalities for which relevant clinical guidance is available.

The organization can establish consistent reporting expectations, identify the responsible clinical service, define how unresolved cases are monitored and determine what evidence is required to document appropriate follow-up.

The process should also address what happens when a patient does not return, an appointment is missed, the original clinician becomes unavailable or responsibility must be transferred to another facility.

Reviewing the initial results may reveal recurring barriers, such as unclear recommendations, unavailable previous imaging, unsuccessful communication or uncertainty about which service should arrange further assessment.

These findings can guide adjustments before the program is expanded.

This gradual approach is preferable to introducing an extensive tracking platform before the responsibilities, workflows and information requirements have been adequately defined.

A limited program that manages important findings reliably may provide a stronger foundation for improvement than a broad system that records many recommendations but cannot establish what happened afterward.

Making Incidental-Finding Follow-Up a Reliable Part of Care

Incidental imaging findings present a distinctive patient safety challenge because they often arise outside the clinical problem that brought the patient to the healthcare facility.

The examination may have been appropriately performed, the radiology report accurate and the original episode of care completed. Yet an additional abnormality may remain clinically important long after the initial consultation has ended.

The potential benefit of detecting that abnormality depends partly on whether the healthcare system can carry the information forward.

International guidance and recent research support an approach in which clinically meaningful incidental findings are clearly described, recommendations are proportionate to risk, responsibility for follow-up is identifiable and unresolved cases remain visible until an appropriate clinical disposition has been documented.

This does not mean every incidental abnormality needs further investigation. Avoiding unnecessary imaging and treatment is also part of diagnostic safety.

For healthcare organizations in Viet Nam, the priority is to establish a dependable connection between the radiology report, the responsible clinician and the subsequent clinical decision.

That connection should remain reliable even when the patient leaves the hospital, continues care elsewhere or encounters difficulties completing the expected next step.

A well-designed process should distinguish between appropriate follow-up, a justified alternative management decision, informed patient refusal, confirmed transfer of responsibility and cases whose outcomes remain unknown.

The measure of success is not simply how many reminders are sent, how many tasks are closed or how many additional scans are performed.

An actionable incidental imaging finding contributes to safer care when the information reaches the appropriate professional, a clinically justified decision is made and the healthcare system can account for what happens next.

Selected References and Regulatory Sources

American College of Radiology. Incidental Findings. Clinical resources and algorithm-based guidance for managing incidentally detected abnormalities. Current resources reviewed in October 2026.

American College of Radiology. ACR Practice Parameter for Communication of Diagnostic Imaging Findings.

Kadom N, Venkatesh AK, Shugarman SA, et al. Novel Quality Measure Set: Closing the Completion Loop on Radiology Follow-up Recommendations for Noncritical Actionable Incidental Findings. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2022;19(7):881–890. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2022.03.017.

Moore CL, Baskin A, Chang AM, et al. White Paper: Best Practices in the Communication and Management of Actionable Incidental Findings in Emergency Department Imaging. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2023;20(4):422–430. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.01.001.

Shah RM, Dehadrai A, Keshwani A, Schmitz B, Carr JC. Closing the Loop: 9-Year Outcomes of an Electronic Medical Record-Based Protocol for Reporting Incidental Imaging Findings. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2026;23(1):45–51. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2025.08.047.

Koshiol MA, Dery R, Reiland L, et al. Imaging Actionable Incidental Findings: Communication and Follow Up to Eliminate Preventable Harm. American Journal of Medical Quality. 2026;41(5):287–292. DOI: 10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000325.

McCoubrie P. The Rules of Actionable Reporting. Insights into Imaging. Published October 25, 2026;17:265. DOI: 10.1186/s13244-026-02429-8.

Sammer MBK, Joshi A, Beavers AJ, et al. A Road Map for Addressing Incidental Findings in Pediatric Radiology. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2026;23(10):1895–1903. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2026.06.019.

National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law on Medical Examination and Treatment No. 15/2023/QH15, as amended and reflected in Consolidated Document No. 26/VBHN-VPQH dated February 26, 2026, particularly Article 69 concerning medical records.

National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15. Effective January 1, 2026.

Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP, detailing certain provisions and implementation measures of the Law on Personal Data Protection. Effective January 1, 2026.

Professional Scope and Disclaimer

This article is published by Diagnostic Excellence Vietnam (DxEx.vn), a professional initiative dedicated to advancing diagnostic quality, safety and reliability in Viet Nam through evidence-informed knowledge sharing, risk management, measurement and quality improvement.

The content is intended for general professional education and discussion. It does not constitute patient-specific medical advice, an interpretation of diagnostic imaging for an individual patient, a clinical diagnosis, an individualized recommendation for investigation or follow-up, a determination of professional responsibility, or legal advice. References to international professional guidance, standards and quality measures do not imply that they are automatically mandatory under Vietnamese law.

Decisions concerning the interpretation of imaging findings, the need for additional investigations, specialist referral, surveillance, clinical management and communication with patients must be made by appropriately qualified and authorized healthcare professionals, taking account of the patient's clinical circumstances, applicable Vietnamese law and relevant professional standards.

Diagnostic Excellence Vietnam does not provide clinical diagnosis or treatment services.