Search

Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance and clinical outcomes of 2-mSv computed tomography (CT) and conventional-dose CT (CDCT), following radiology residents' interpretation of CT examinations for suspected appendicitis., Materials and Methods: Altogether, 3074 patients with suspected appendicitis aged 15-44 years (28 ± 9 years, 1672 females) from 20 hospitals were randomly assigned to the 2-mSv CT (n = 1535) or CDCT (n = 1539) groups in a pragmatic trial from December 2013 and August 2016. Overall, 107 radiology residents participated in the trial as readers in the form of daily practice after online training for 2-mSv CT. They made preliminary CT reports, which were later finalized by attending radiologists via addendum reports, for 640 and 657 patients in the 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups, respectively. We compared the diagnostic performance of the residents, discrepancies between preliminary and addendum reports, and clinical outcomes between the two groups., Results: Patient characteristics were similar between the 640 and 657 patients. Residents' diagnostic performance was not significantly different between the 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups, with a sensitivity of 96.0% and 97.1%, respectively (difference [95% confidence interval {CI}], -1.1% [-4.9%, 2.6%]; P = 0.69) and specificity of 93.2% and 93.1%, respectively (0.1% [-3.6%, 3.7%]; P > 0.99). The 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups did not significantly differ in discrepancies between the preliminary and addendum reports regarding the presence of appendicitis (3.3% vs. 5.2%; -1.9% [-4.2%, 0.4%]; P = 0.12) and alternative diagnosis (5.5% vs. 6.4%; -0.9% [-3.6%, 1.8%]; P = 0.56). The rates of perforated appendicitis (12.0% vs. 12.6%; -0.6% [-4.3%, 3.1%]; P = 0.81) and negative appendectomies (1.9% vs. 1.1%; 0.8% [-0.7%, 2.3%]; P = 0.33) were not significantly different between the two groups., Conclusion: Diagnostic performance and clinical outcomes were not significantly different between the 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups following radiology residents' CT readings for suspected appendicitis., Competing Interests: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Korean Society of Radiology.)

Objective: We compared appendiceal visualization on 2-mSv CT vs. conventional-dose CT (median 7 mSv) in adolescents and young adults and analyzed the undesirable clinical and diagnostic outcomes that followed appendiceal nonvisualization., Materials and Methods: A total of 3074 patients aged 15-44 years (mean ± standard deviation, 28 ± 9 years; 1672 female) from 20 hospitals were randomized to the 2-mSv CT or conventional-dose CT group (1535 vs. 1539) from December 2013 through August 2016. A total of 161 radiologists from 20 institutions prospectively rated appendiceal visualization (grade 0, not identified; grade 1, unsure or partly visualized; and grade 2, clearly and entirely visualized) and the presence of appendicitis in these patients. The final diagnosis was based on CT imaging and surgical, pathologic, and clinical findings. We analyzed undesirable clinical or diagnostic outcomes, such as negative appendectomy, perforated appendicitis, more extensive than simple appendectomy, delay in patient management, or incorrect CT diagnosis, which followed appendiceal nonvisualization (defined as grade 0 or 1) and compared the outcomes between the two groups., Results: In the 2-mSv CT and conventional-dose CT groups, appendiceal visualization was rated as grade 0 in 41 (2.7%) and 18 (1.2%) patients, respectively; grade 1 in 181 (11.8%) and 81 (5.3%) patients, respectively; and grade 2 in 1304 (85.0%) and 1421 (92.3%) patients, respectively ( p < 0.001). Overall, undesirable outcomes were rare in both groups. Compared to the conventional-dose CT group, the 2-mSv CT group had slightly higher rates of perforated appendicitis (1.1% [17] vs. 0.5% [7], p = 0.06) and false-negative diagnoses (0.4% [6] vs. 0.0% [0], p = 0.01) following appendiceal nonvisualization. Otherwise, these two groups were comparable., Conclusion: The use of 2-mSv CT instead of conventional-dose CT impairs appendiceal visualization in more patients. However, appendiceal nonvisualization on 2-mSv CT rarely leads to undesirable clinical or diagnostic outcomes., Competing Interests: Kyoung Ho Lee received a research grant from the National Research Foundation of Korea and Seungjae Lee received salary support from the research grant. Jungheum Cho received a research grant from the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Other authors declare there is no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Korean Society of Radiology.)

Objective: To compare 2-mSv CT and conventional-dose CT (CDCT, typically 7-8 mSv) regarding final diagnosis and patient disposition following equivocal CT results in adolescents and young adults with suspected appendicitis., Methods: In total, 3074 patients of 15-44 years (28 ± 9 years, 1672 women) from 20 hospitals were randomized to undergo contrast-enhanced 2-mSv CT (n = 1535) or CDCT (n = 1539) from December 2013 through August 2016. One hundred sixty-one radiologists prospectively rated the likelihood of appendicitis in a Likert scale (i.e., grades 1-5). The final diagnosis was based on CT image, surgical, pathologic, and clinical findings. Post hoc analysis was performed for final diagnosis, surgical procedure, and delay in patient management following equivocal results (i.e., grade 3)., Results: The 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups were comparable for final diagnosis following equivocal results, including confirmed appendicitis (1.2% [18 patients] vs. 1.2% [19], p > 0.99), negative appendectomy (0.1% [2] vs. 0.3% [4], p = 0.53), and perforated appendicitis (0.1% [1] vs. 0.2% [3], p = 0.53). More patients were confirmed as not having appendicitis following equivocal results in the CDCT group than in the 2-mSv CT group (2.2% [34] vs. 1.0% [16], p = 0.016). The two groups were comparable for the need of appendectomy (1.4% [22] vs. 1.5% [23], p > 0.99), need of additional imaging tests (0.7% [11] vs. 1.1% [17], p = 0.35), and delay in patient management following equivocal results., Conclusion: 2-mSv CT is comparable to CDCT regarding final diagnosis and patient disposition following equivocal CT results., Key Points: • Our results strengthen evidence justifying the use of low-dose CT instead of conventional-dose CT (CDCT) in adolescents and young adults with suspected appendicitis. • The 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups were comparable for final diagnosis following equivocal CT results, including confirmed appendicitis (1.2% vs. 1.2%, p > 0.99), negative appendectomy (0.1% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.53), and perforated appendicitis (0.1% vs. 0.2%, p = 0.53). • The two groups were comparable for the need for appendectomy (1.4% vs. 1.5%, p > 0.99), need for additional imaging tests (0.7% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.35), and delay in patient management, following equivocal CT results., (© 2021. European Society of Radiology.)

BACKGROUND. Adoption of low-dose CT for the diagnosis of appendicitis has been slow in children and in adults, partly because of concern about missing alternative diagnoses including right colonic diverticulitis. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to retrospectively compare the diagnostic performance of IV contrast-enhanced 2-mSv and conventional-dose CT (CDCT) for the diagnosis of right colonic diverticulitis in adolescents and young adults with suspected appendicitis. METHODS. This post hoc analysis of a prospective randomized controlled trial included 3074 patients (1672 female patients and 1402 male patients) ranging in age from 15 to 44 years old (mean ± SD, 28 ± 9 years) from 20 hospitals. From December 2013 to August 2016, patients were randomized to either the 2-mSv CT group ( n = 1535 patients) or the CDCT (median, 7 mSv) group ( n = 1539 patients). A total of 161 radiologists prospectively issued CT reports in which they suggested alternative diagnoses for 976 (2-mSv CT) and 924 (CDCT) patients. Seven independent assessors adjudicated final diagnoses on the basis of clinical and CT findings. Endpoints of test-positives, test-negatives, sensitivity, and specificity for right colonic diverticulitis were compared using chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. Characteristics and disposition of patients with test-positive results were assessed. Four readers retrospectively reviewed CT images of 400 patients selected from the trial (113 and 108 patients with diverticulitis from 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups, respectively) to evaluate interobserver agreement for right colonic diverticulitis in terms of Gwet coefficients. RESULTS. Between-group differences were minute for most endpoints related to right colonic diverticulitis: test-positives (difference, 0.2% [95% CI, -1.8% to 2.1%]; 7.8% [119/1535 patients] vs 7.6% [117/1539 patients]; p = .93), test-negatives (0.5% [95% CI, -1.5% to 2.5%]; 91.7% [1407/1535] vs 91.2% [1403/1539]; p = .67), sensitivity (0% [95% CI, -6% to 6%]; 95% [110/116] vs 95% [105/111]; p > .99), and specificity (0.3% [95% CI, -0.5% to 0.9%]; 99.4% [1401/1410] vs 99.1% [1397/1409]; p = .66). The characteristics and disposition of test-positive patients were similar between the two groups. Gwet coefficients were high and comparable between the two groups (2-mSv CT vs CDCT, 0.849 vs 0.889; p = .20). CONCLUSION. Two-millisievert CT is comparable to conventional-dose CT for the diagnosis of right colonic diverticulitis. CLINICAL IMPACT. By mitigating concern about a missed diagnosis of right colonic diverticulitis, the results further support the use of low-dose CT in patients with suspected appendicitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01925014.

Background There are ongoing efforts to reduce CT radiation exposure for the diagnosis of appendicitis. Recent guidelines recommend using clinical scoring systems to triage patients who need imaging examinations. Purpose To determine whether patient triaging with scoring systems can reduce CT use without a loss of diagnostic accuracy in adolescents and young adults suspected of having appendicitis. Materials and Methods This retrospective study used data from a previous multicenter randomized controlled trial conducted between December 2013 and August 2016. Five scoring systems (adult appendicitis, appendicitis inflammatory response, modified Alvarado, Broek, and Christian scores) were used to categorize patients into low-, intermediate-, or high-probability groups. CT use was simulated for only the intermediate-probability group. The primary outcomes were CT reduction rate, sensitivity, and specificity. The CT reduction rate was defined as the proportion of patients in low- and high-probability groups who would not have to undergo CT among all patients. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated in the overall diagnostic pathway using each scoring system and subsequent CT. As a secondary analysis, to maintain the diagnostic accuracy to a level of when CT was used for all patients with suspected appendicitis, new cutoff values for probability group stratification targeting 97.6% sensitivity and 94.9% specificity were applied for each of the scoring systems. Results A total of 2888 patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 28 years ± 9; 1580 women and 1308 men) with suspected appendicitis were evaluated, of whom 1088 had and 1800 did not have appendicitis. The CT reduction rates of the five scoring systems ranged from 55.6% (1606 of 2888 patients) to 71.1% (2053 of 2888), but at the cost of sensitivity (range, 48.7% [530 of 1088] to 81.2% [883 of 1088]) and specificity (range, 79.0% [1422 of 1800] to 97.8% [1761 of 1800]). Targeting 97.6% sensitivity and 94.9% specificity, the CT reduction rates of all five scoring systems were 0% (0 of 2888). Conclusion Using clinical scoring systems in triaging patients for selective CT use led to a considerable loss of diagnostic accuracy. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Mellnick in this issue.

Purpose: Differentiating complicated appendicitis has become important, as multiple trials showed that non-operative management of uncomplicated appendicitis is feasible. We developed and validated a diagnostic model to differentiate complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis., Methods: This retrospective study included 1153 patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 30 ± 8 years) with appendicitis on CT (804 patients for development, and 349 for validation). Complicated appendicitis was confirmed in 300 and 121 patients in the development and validation datasets, respectively. The reference standard was surgical or pathological report except in 7 patients who underwent percutaneous abscess drainage. We developed a model using multivariable logistic regression and Bayesian information criterion. We assessed calibration and discriminatory performance of the model in the validation dataset via calibration plot and the area under the curve (AUC), respectively. We measured sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and proportion of false- and true-negatives of the model in the validation dataset, targeting 95% sensitivity., Results: Five CT features (contrast-enhancement defect of the appendiceal wall, abscess, moderate or severe periappendiceal fat stranding, appendiceal diameter, and extraluminal air) and percentage of segmented neutrophil were included in our model. The calibration slope was 1.03, and AUC was 0.81 (95% CI 0.77-0.85) in the validation dataset. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and proportion of false- and true-negatives were 93.4% (91.8-99.1), 28.1% (13.6-24.1), 40.8% (35.0-46.8), 88.9% (79.3-95.1), 2.3%, and 18.3%, respectively., Conclusion: Our model may identify patients with unequivocally uncomplicated appendicitis, who may benefit from non-operative management with low risk of failure.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to compare diagnostic performance of 2-mSv CT and standard-dose CT (SDCT) for the diagnosis of perforated appendicitis in adolescents and young adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We used the intention-to-treat analysis set of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial involving 3074 patients (age range, 15-44 years) with suspected appendicitis and 161 radiologists from 20 hospitals. The patients were randomized to undergo either 2-mSv CT or SDCT. Predefined endpoints were sensitivity and specificity. Considering potential verification bias caused by the difference in diagnostic interventions (2-mSv CT vs SDCT), we added endpoints of detection rate (DR) and false-referral rate. The reference standards were surgical or pathologic findings. We used Fisher exact tests. Sensitivity analyses included the following: first, a per-protocol analysis; second, an analysis of a surgical reference standard but not a pathologic reference standard; and, third, an analysis to adjust for site clustering. We tested for heterogeneity in DR and false-referral rate across various patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS. The 2-mSv CT and SDCT groups were comparable regarding DR (5.1% [78/1535] vs 4.9% [76/1539]; 95% CI for the difference, -1.4 to 1.7 percentage points; p = 0.87), false-referral rate (3.1% [48/1535] vs 3.1% [47/1539]; 95% CI for the difference, -1.2 to 1.3 percentage points; p = 0.92), sensitivity (42.9% [78/182] vs 43.2% [76/176]; 95% CI for the difference, -10.6 to 9.9 percentage points; p > 0.99), and specificity (89.2% [305/342] vs 91.2% [354/388]; 95% CI for the difference, -6.4 to 2.3 percentage points; p = 0.38). Sensitivity analyses showed similar results. We found no significant subgroup heterogeneity. CONCLUSION. The performance of 2-mSv CT, with limited sensitivity but high specificity, is comparable to that of SDCT for the diagnosis of appendiceal perforation.

Objectives: To test whether the difference in sensitivity or specificity between 2-mSv CT and conventional-dose CT (CDCT) for the diagnosis of appendicitis differs across subgroups of adolescents and young adults with suspected appendicitis., Materials and Methods: We used the per-protocol analysis data of a trial conducted between Dec 2013 and Aug 2016, including 2773 patients (median age [interquartile range], 28 [21-35] years) and 160 radiologists from 20 hospitals. We defined subgroups by sex, body size, clinical risk scores for appendicitis, time of CT examination (i.e., working vs. after hours), CT machines, radiologists' experience, previous site experience in 2-mSv CT, and site practice volume. We drew forest plots and tested for additive or multiplicative interaction between radiation dose and subgroup attributes. If any subgroup had fewer than 200 patients, we considered the results from that subgroup not meaningful., Results: For most subgroups, the 95% CIs for the differences in sensitivity and specificity were 4.0 percentage points or narrower and contained the minute overall between-group differences. There was no significant interaction on sensitivity or specificity. A few subgroups, including those of extreme body sizes, high appendicitis inflammatory response scores, and hospitals with small appendectomy volume, were regarded to have insufficient numbers of patients., Conclusions: There was no notable subgroup heterogeneity, which implies that 2-mSv CT can replace CDCT in diverse populations. Further studies are needed for the subgroups for which we had only small data., Key Points: • The minute difference in sensitivity or specificity between the 2-mSv CT and conventional-dose CT (typically 7 mSv) groups were consistent across various patient or hospital characteristics. • These results indicate that 2-mSv CT can replace conventional-dose CT in diverse populations. • Further studies are needed to confirm whether 2-mSv CT can replace conventional-dose CT in patients of extreme body sizes, high appendicitis inflammatory response scores, or hospitals with small appendectomy volume, as those subgroups in our data included limited numbers of patients.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to propose a sensitive CT criterion (the presence of any of 10 CT features) for complicated appendicitis that could be used in the nonoperative management of appendicitis and to compare the diagnostic performance of this sensitive CT criterion with that of gestalt assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This retrospective study, which was conducted in a tertiary teaching hospital, included 100 patients with suspected appendicitis on CT. Complicated appendicitis, defined as gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, was pathologically or surgically confirmed in 32 patients. Six radiologists independently determined the presence of 10 previously reported CT features of complicated appendicitis (contrast enhancement defect of the appendiceal wall, abscess, extraluminal air, intraluminal air, extraluminal appendicolith, intraluminal appendicolith, moderate-to-severe periappendiceal fat stranding, periappendiceal fluid, ileus, and ascites) and rated the likelihood score for complicated appendicitis using gestalt assessment. The sensitivity and specificity of CT for complicated appendicitis were measured by the presence of any of 10 CT features (the any-of-10-features criterion) and by the radiologists' gestalt assessment. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were compared using a generalized linear mixed model. RESULTS. The pooled sensitivity of the presence of any of 10 CT features was higher than that of gestalt assessment (92% vs 64%; difference, 28% [95% CI, 10-46%]; p < 0.001), although the pooled specificity was lower (43% vs 76%; difference, -33% [95% CI, -48% to -17%]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION. The pooled sensitivity of the presence of any of 10 CT features was higher than that of gestalt assessment, at the cost of lower specificity. For prudent selection of patients who should receive nonoperative treatment of appendicitis, the any-of-10-features criterion may be used to decrease treatment failure associated with a false-negative diagnosis of complication.

Objectives: To systematically explore the lowest reasonably achievable radiation dose for appendiceal CT using an iterative reconstruction (IR) in young adults., Methods: We prospectively included 30 patients who underwent 2.0-mSv CT for suspected appendicitis. From the helical projection data, 1.5-, 1.0- and 0.5-mSv CTs were generated using a low-dose simulation tool and the knowledge-based IR. We performed step-wise non-inferiority tests sequentially comparing 2.0-mSv CT with each of 1.5-, 1.0- and 0.5-mSv CT, with a predetermined non-inferiority margin of 0.06. The primary end point was the pooled area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) for three abdominal and three non-abdominal radiologists., Results: For the abdominal radiologists, the non-inferiorities of 1.5-, 1.0- and 0.5-mSv CT to 2.0-mSv CT were sequentially accepted [pooled AUC difference: 2.0 vs. 0.5 mSv, 0.017 (95% CI: -0.016, 0.050)]. For the non-abdominal radiologists, the non-inferiorities of 1.5- and 1.0-mSv CT were accepted; however, the non-inferiority of 0.5-mSv CT could not be proved [pooled AUC difference: 2.0 vs. 1.0 mSv, -0.017 (-0.070, 0.035) and 2.0 vs. 0.5 mSv, 0.045 (-0.071, 0.161)]., Conclusion: The 1.0-mSv appendiceal CT was non-inferior to 2.0-mSv CT in terms of diagnostic performance for both abdominal and non-abdominal radiologists; 0.5-mSv appendiceal CT was non-inferior only for abdominal radiologists., Key Points: • For both abdominal and non-abdominal radiologists, 1.0-mSv appendiceal CT could be feasible. • The 0.5-mSv CT was non-inferior to 2.0-mSv CT only for expert abdominal radiologists. • Reader experience is an important factor affecting diagnostic impairment by low-dose CT.

Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify computed tomographic (CT) features for differentiating complicated appendicitis in patients suspected of having appendicitis and to summarize their diagnostic accuracy. Materials and Methods Studies on diagnostic accuracy of CT features for differentiating complicated appendicitis (perforated or gangrenous appendicitis) in patients suspected of having appendicitis were searched in Ovid-MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Overlapping descriptors used in different studies to denote the same image finding were subsumed under a single CT feature. Pooled diagnostic accuracy of the CT features was calculated by using a bivariate random effects model. CT features with pooled diagnostic odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals not including 1 were considered as informative. Results Twenty-three studies were included, and 184 overlapping descriptors for various CT findings were subsumed under 14 features. Of these, 10 features were informative for complicated appendicitis. There was a general tendency for these features to show relatively high specificity but low sensitivity. Extraluminal appendicolith, abscess, appendiceal wall enhancement defect, extraluminal air, ileus, periappendiceal fluid collection, ascites, intraluminal air, and intraluminal appendicolith showed pooled specificity greater than 70% (range, 74%-100%), but sensitivity was limited (range, 14%-59%). Periappendiceal fat stranding was the only feature that showed high sensitivity (94%; 95% confidence interval: 86%, 98%) but low specificity (40%; 95% confidence interval, 23%, 60%). Conclusion Ten informative CT features for differentiating complicated appendicitis were identified in this study, nine of which showed high specificity, but low sensitivity. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

A vast disparity exists between science and practice for CT radiation dose. Despite high-level evidence supporting the use of low-dose CT (LDCT) in diagnosing appendicitis, a recent survey showed that many care providers were still concerned that the low image quality of LDCT may lead to incorrect diagnoses. For successful implementation of LDCT practice, it is important to inform and educate the care providers not only of the scientific discoveries but also of concrete guidelines on how to overcome more practical matters. Here, we discuss CT imaging techniques and other practical issues for implementing LDCT practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]