Abdominal and pelvic CT: is positive enteric contrast still necessary? Results of a retrospective observational study

Oral CT Contrast Agents: What's New and Why, From the AJR Special Series on Contrast Media

Current CT oral contrast agents improve the conspicuity of and confidence in bowel and peritoneal findings in many clinical scenarios, particularly for outpatient and oncologic abdominopelvic imaging. Yet, existing positive and neutral oral contrast agents may diminish the detectability of certain radiologic findings, frequently in the same scans in which the oral contrast agent improves the detectability of other findings. With ongoing improvements in CT technology, particularly multienergy CT, opportunities are opening for new types of oral contrast agents to further improve anatomic delineation and disease detection using CT. The CT signal of new dark oral contrast agents and of new high-Z oral contrast agents promises to combine the strengths of both positive and neutral oral CT contrast agents by providing distinct CT appearances in comparison with bodily tissues, iodinated IV contrast agents, and other classes of new CT contrast agents. High-Z oral contrast agents will unlock previously inaccessible capabilities of multienergy CT, particularly photon-counting detector CT, for differentiating simultaneously administered IV and oral contrast agents; this technique will allow generation of rich 3D, intuitive, perfectly coregistered, high-resolution image sets with individual contrast agent "colors" that provide compelling clarity for intertwined intraabdominal anatomy and disease processes.

Automated abdominal CT contrast phase detection using an interpretable and open-source artificial intelligence algorithm

OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate an open-source artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm to accurately detect contrast phases in abdominal CT scans.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective study aimed to develop an AI algorithm trained on 739 abdominal CT exams from 2016 to 2021, from 200 unique patients, covering 1545 axial series. We performed segmentation of five key anatomic structures-aorta, portal vein, inferior vena cava, renal parenchyma, and renal pelvis-using TotalSegmentator, a deep learning-based tool for multi-organ segmentation, and a rule-based approach to extract the renal pelvis. Radiomics features were extracted from the anatomical structures for use in a gradient-boosting classifier to identify four contrast phases: non-contrast, arterial, venous, and delayed. Internal and external validation was performed using the F1 score and other classification metrics, on the external dataset "VinDr-Multiphase CT".

RESULTS

The training dataset consisted of 172 patients (mean age, 70 years ± 8, 22% women), and the internal test set included 28 patients (mean age, 68 years ± 8, 14% women). In internal validation, the classifier achieved an accuracy of 92.3%, with an average F1 score of 90.7%. During external validation, the algorithm maintained an accuracy of 90.1%, with an average F1 score of 82.6%. Shapley feature attribution analysis indicated that renal and vascular radiodensity values were the most important for phase classification.

CONCLUSION

An open-source and interpretable AI algorithm accurately detects contrast phases in abdominal CT scans, with high accuracy and F1 scores in internal and external validation, confirming its generalization capability.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Contrast phase detection in abdominal CT scans is a critical step for downstream AI applications, deploying algorithms in the clinical setting, and for quantifying imaging biomarkers, ultimately allowing for better diagnostics and increased access to diagnostic imaging.

KEY POINTS

Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine labels are inaccurate for determining the abdominal CT scan phase. AI provides great help in accurately discriminating the contrast phase. Accurate contrast phase determination aids downstream AI applications and biomarker quantification.

Characterization of single- and multi-energy CT performance of an oral dark borosilicate contrast media using a clinical photon-counting-detector CT platform

BACKGROUND

The feasibility of oral dark contrast media is under exploration in abdominal computed tomography (CT) applications. One of the experimental contrast media in this class is dark borosilicate contrast media (DBCM), which has a CT attenuation lower than that of intra-abdominal fat.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the performances of DBCM using single- and multi-energy CT imaging on a clinical photon-counting-detector CT (PCD-CT).

METHODS

Five vials, three with iodinated contrast agent (5, 10, and 20 mg/mL; Omnipaque 350) and two with DBCM (6% and 12%; Nextrast, Inc.), and one solid-water rod (neutral contrast agent) were inserted into two multi-energy CT phantoms, and scanned on a clinical PCD-CT system (NAEOTOM Alpha) at 90, 120, 140, Sn100, and Sn140 kV (Sn: tin filter) in multi-energy mode. CARE keV IQ level was 180 (CTDIvol: 3.0 and 12.0 mGy for the small and large phantoms, respectively). Low-energy threshold images were reconstructed with a quantitative kernel (Qr40, iterative reconstruction strength 2) and slice thickness/increment of 2.0/2.0 mm. Virtual monoenergetic images (VMIs) were reconstructed from 40 to 140 keV at 10 keV increments. On all images, average CT numbers for each vial/rod were measured using circular region-of-interests and averaged over eight slices. The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of iodine (5 mg/mL) against DBCM was calculated and plotted against tube potential and VMI energy level, and compared to the CNR of iodine against water. Similar analyses were performed on iodine maps and VNC images derived from the multi-energy scan at 120 kV.

RESULTS

With increasing kV or VMI keV, the negative HU of DBCM decreased only slightly, whereas the positive HU of iodine decreased across all contrast concentrations and phantom sizes. CT numbers for DBCM decreased from -178.5 ± 9.6 to -194.4 ± 6.3 HU (small phantom) and from -181.7 ± 15.7 to -192.1 ± 11.9 HU (large phantom) for DBCM-12% from 90 to Sn140 kV; on VMIs, the CT numbers for DBCM decreased minimally from -147.1 ± 15.7 to -185.1 ± 9.2 HU (small phantom) and -158.8 ± 28.6 to -188.9 ± 14.7 HU (large phantom) from 40 to 70 keV, but remained stable from 80 to 140 keV. The highest iodine CNR against DBCM in low-energy threshold images was seen at 90 or Sn140 kV for the small phantom, whereas all CNR values from low-energy threshold images for the large phantom were comparable. The CNR values of iodine against DBCM computed on VMIs were highest at 40 or 70 keV depending on iodine and DBCM concentrations. The CNR values of iodine against DBCM were consistently higher than iodine to water (up to 460% higher dependent on energy level). Further, the CNR of iodine compared to DBCM is less affected by VMI energy level than the identical comparison between iodine and water: CNR values at 140 keV were reduced by 46.6% (small phantom) or 42.6% (large phantom) compared to 40 keV; CNR values for iodine compared to water were reduced by 86.3% and 83.8% for similar phantom sizes, respectively. Compared to 70 keV VMI, the iodine CNR against DBCM was 13%-79% lower on iodine maps and VNC.

CONCLUSIONS

When evaluated at different tube potentials and VMI energy levels using a clinical PCD-CT system, DBCM showed consistently higher CNR compared to iodine versus water (a neutral contrast).

Optimizing Outpatient Oral Contrast Use in Abdominal CT-A Radiology Pandemic Response Initiative to Reduce Patient Time in the Waiting Room and Reduce Costs, While Improving Patient Experience

Purpose: The aim was to reduce outpatient wait time and improve patient experience by optimising oral contrast use. Methods: Our multidisciplinary stakeholder collaboration implemented two simultaneous interventions: (1) Creation of 'oral contrast policy', limiting recommended indications. (2) Creation of a new shorter oral contrast regime (30 vs 60 min). We conducted a retrospective service evaluation of oral contrast use in outpatient (OP) abdominal CT at baseline and post-intervention. Patient wait times were measured and per-patient cost-savings were reported. An image quality review was performed by 2 blinded abdominal radiologists. Patient experience was evaluated with a standard voluntary survey. Statistical analysis was performed comparing baseline and evaluation outcomes using Chi-square or Fisher Exact test for categorical variables and Student's t-test or ANOVA for continuous data. Results: Over 1-month periods, OP CT scans were assessed in baseline (pre-pandemic) n = 575, baseline (pandemic) n = 495 and post-intervention n = 545 groups. Oral contrast use reduced from 420/575, 73.0% at baseline to 178/545, 32.7% post intervention. The turn-around time reduced by 15.8 minutes per patient from 70.3 to 54.5 minutes, P < .001 (Interventions 1 and 2). The diagnostic quality did not differ between the oral contrast regimes (Intervention 2, P = 1.0, P = .08). No repeat CTs were needed due to lack of oral contrast (Intervention 1) or poor opacification (Intervention 2). There was oral contrast cost reductions of 69.1-78.4% (P < .001). Patients reported their overall experience was improved post-intervention (Interventions 1 and 2). Conclusions: Optimising the CT oral contrast service through judicious use and a shorter regime, reduced patient wait times, improved patient experience and preserved diagnostic quality.

Positive Versus Neutral Oral Contrast Material for Detection of Malignant Deposits in Intraabdominal Nonsolid Organs on CT

BACKGROUND. Data are limited regarding utility of positive oral contrast material for peritoneal tumor detection on CT. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to compare positive versus neutral oral contrast material for detection of malignant deposits in nonsolid intraabdominal organs on CT. METHODS. This retrospective study included 265 patients (133 men, 132 women; median age, 61 years) who underwent an abdominopelvic CT examination in which the report did not suggest presence of malignant deposits and a subsequent CT examination within 6 months in which the report indicated at least one unequivocal malignant deposit. Examinations used positive (iohexol; n = 100) or neutral (water; n = 165) oral agents. A radiologist reviewed images to assess whether the deposits were visible (despite clinical reports indicating no deposits) on unblinded comparison with the follow-up examinations; identified deposits were assigned to one of seven intraabdominal compartments. The radiologist also assessed adequacy of bowel filling with oral contrast material. Two additional radiologists independently reviewed examinations in blinded fashion for malignant deposits. NPV was assessed of clinical CT reports and blinded retrospective readings for detection of malignant deposits visible on unblinded comparison with follow-up examinations. RESULTS. Unblinded review identified malignant deposits in 58.1% (154/265) of examinations. In per-patient analysis of clinical reports, NPV for malignant deposits was higher for examinations with adequate bowel filling with positive oral contrast material (65.8% [25/38]) than for examinations with inadequate bowel filling with positive oral contrast material (45.2% [28/62], p = .07) or with neutral oral contrast material regardless of bowel filling adequacy (35.2% [58/165], p = .002). In per-compartment analysis of blinded interpretations, NPV was higher for examinations with adequate and inadequate bowel filling with positive oral contrast material than for examinations with neutral oral contrast regardless of bowel filling adequacy (reader 1: 94.7% [234/247] and 92.5% [382/413] vs 88.3% [947/1072], both p = .045; reader 2: 93.1% [228/245] and 91.6% [361/394] vs 85.9% [939/1093], both p = .01). CONCLUSION. CT has suboptimal NPV for malignant deposits in intraabdominal nonsolid organs. Compared with neutral material, positive oral contrast material improves detection, particularly with adequate bowel filling. CLINICAL IMPACT. Optimization of bowel preparation for oncologic CT may help avoid potentially severe clinical consequences of missed malignant deposits.

Positive oral contrast material for CT evaluation of non-traumatic abdominal pain in the ED: prospective assessment of diagnostic confidence and throughput metrics

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the impact of positive oral contrast material (POCM) for non-traumatic abdominal pain on diagnostic confidence, diagnostic rate, and ED throughput.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

ED oral contrast guidelines were changed to limit use of POCM. A total of 2,690 abdominopelvic CT exams performed for non-traumatic abdominal pain were prospectively evaluated for diagnostic confidence (5-point scale at 20% increments; 5 = 80-100% confidence) during a 24-month period. Impact on ED metrics including time from CT order to exam, preliminary read, ED length of stay (LOS), and repeat CT scan within 7 days was assessed. A subset of cases (n = 729) was evaluated for diagnostic rate. Data were collected at 2 time points, 6 and 24 months following the change.

RESULTS

A total of 38 reviewers were participated (28 trainees, 10 staff). 1238 exams (46%) were done with POCM, 1452 (54%) were performed without POCM. For examinations with POCM, 80% of exams received a diagnostic confidence score of 5 (mean, 4.78 ± 0.43; 99% ≥ 4), whereas 60% of exams without POCM received a score of 5 (mean, 4.51 ± 0.70; 92% ≥ 4; p < .001). Trainees scored 1,523 exams (57%, 722 + POCM, 801 -POCM) and showed even lower diagnostic confidence in cases without PCOM compared with faculty (mean, 4.43 ± 0.68 vs. 4.59 ± 0.71; p < 0.001). Diagnostic rate in a randomly selected subset of exams (n = 729) was 54.2% in the POCM group versus 56.1% without POCM (p < 0.655). CT order to exam time decreased by 31 min, order to preliminary read decreased by 33 min, and ED LOS decreased by 30 min (approximately 8% of total LOS) in the group without POCM compared to those with POCM (p < 0.001 for all). 205 patients had a repeat scan within 7 days, 74 (36%) had IV contrast only, 131 (64%) had both IV and oral contrast on initial exam. Findings were consistent both over a 6-month evaluation period as well as the full 24-month study period.

CONCLUSION

Limiting use of POCM in the ED for non-traumatic abdominal pain improved ED throughput but impaired diagnostic confidence, particularly in trainees; however, it did not significantly impact diagnostic rates nor proportion of repeat CT exams.

Tackling the increasing contamination of the water supply by iodinated contrast media

Contrast media are essential for diagnostic and interventional procedures. Iodinated contrast media are the most commonly used agents, with CT requiring the largest overall quantities. Data show that these iodinated contrast media are found in sewage water, surface water and drinking water in many regions in the world. Because standard drinking water purification techniques only provide poor to moderate removal of iodinated contrast media, these substances pose a problem for drinking water preparation that has not yet been solved. There is a growing body of evidence supporting the negative environmental effects of iodinated contrast media via their breakdown products. The environmental impact of iodinated contrast media can be mitigated by measures focusing on the application of contrast media or the excretion of contrast media. Measures with respect to contrast application include reducing the utilization of contrast media, reducing the waste of contrast media and collecting residues of contrast media at the point of application. The amount of contrast media excreted into the sewage water can be decreased by introducing urine bags and/or special urine collection and waste-water processing techniques in the hospital. To tackle the problem of contrast media in the water system in its entirety, it is necessary for all parties involved to cooperate, from the producer of contrast medium to the consumer of drinking water. This paper aims to make health professionals aware of the opportunity to take the lead now in more conscious decisions regarding use of contrast media and gives an overview of the different perspectives for action.

[Incidental and "leave me alone" findings in the GI tract-part 1 : Intestinal lumen and intestinal wall]

CLINICAL PROBLEM

Due to the widespread use of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) asymptomatic incidental findings of the gastrointestinal tract (GI) are increasingly being recognized. Incidental findings are frequently not part of the primary inquiry from referring physicians but it is obligatory to make a diagnosis and to stipulate the need for further clarification.

RADIOLOGICAL STANDARD PROCEDURES

A multitude of incidental findings in the intestinal lumen, in the intestinal wall and in the adjacent mesenterium or subperitoneal space are shown in CT and MRI.

METHODOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

The first part of the two-part overview addresses the intestinal incidental findings in the lumen, such as coproliths, invaginations, mucoceles and chronic dilatations. In the intestinal wall, thickenings of neoplastic and nonneoplastic origins are discussed. Many of the findings can be classified as benign and as "leave me alone lesions" do not necessitate any further clarification but in contrast others need a definitive clarification. The most important incidental findings in the GI tract are systematically classified, illustrated and evaluated with respect to the clinical relevance, depending on the localization (e.g. stomach, small and large intestines).

Bowel Peristalsis Artifact on Dual-Energy CT: In Vitro Study on the Influence of Different Dual-Energy CT Platforms and Enteric Contrast Agents

BACKGROUND. The value of dual-energy CT (DECT) for bowel wall assessment is increasingly recognized. Although technical improvements reduce peristalsis artifact in conventional CT, the effects of peristalsis on DECT image reconstructions remain poorly studied. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of different DECT scanners and enteric contrast agents on the severity of bowel peristalsis artifact in vitro. METHODS. To simulate bowel peristalsis, a 3-cm-diameter corrugated hollow tube representing the bowel was oscillated constantly in the z-axis within a larger water-filled cylinder. The bowel was serially filled with air, water, and iodinated or experimental dark contrast material and scanned on four different DECT platforms (spectral detector, rapid peak kilovoltage switching, split filter, and dual source) to reconstruct 120-kVp-like and iodine images. Two readers rated each image reconstruction for artifact severity from 0 (none) to 3 (severe) and recorded the degree to which iodine images depicted bowel wall hyperattenuation on 120-kVp-like images as artifactual. Artifact severity scores were compared by ANOVA with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS. Interrater agreement on artifact scores was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.79-0.84]). For 120-kVp-like images, mean peristalsis artifact scores were lower (all p < .001) for split-filter (1.47) and dual-source (1.86) scanners than for spectral-detector (2.58) and rapid-kilovoltage-switching (2.74) scanners. Compared with those on 120-kVp images, peristalsis artifacts on iodine images were less severe for spectral-detector (score, 1.03; p < .001) and rapid-kilovoltage-switching (2.09; p < .001) systems but more severe for dual-source (2.77; p < .001) and split-filter (2.62; p < .001) systems. Peristalsis artifact was rated less severe with experimental dark bowel contrast medium (score, 1.79) than with other bowel contrast agents (all p < .001). Iodine images helped identify bowel wall hyperattenuation as artifactual in 94.7% of reviewed cases for spectral-detector and 40.7% of cases for rapid-kilovoltage-switching scanners. CONCLUSION. For spectral-detector and rapid-kilovoltage-switching DECT, iodine images minimize peristalsis artifact, but for dual-source and split-filter DECT, mixed 120-kVp-like images are preferred. Compared with iodinated contrast material and water, experimental dark bowel contrast material reduces peristalsis artifact. CLINICAL IMPACT. Knowledge of the preferred images for reducing peristalsis artifact can lessen the effect of peristalsis on clinical DECT interpretation. Dark enteric contrast agents, when they become clinically available, may further reduce the effects of peristalsis.

Diagnostic accuracy of positive oral contrast in abdominal computed tomography for non-traumatic pathologies: a systematic review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of positive oral contrast versus no oral contrast for common, non-traumatic computed tomography abdominal indications in adults.

INTRODUCTION

Positive oral contrast is regularly administered to patients to drink prior to computed tomography scans of the abdomen and pelvis. The purpose of the preparation is to improve visualization of the bowel, however, technological advances in scanner design may mean positive oral contrast is no longer required.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Eligible studies will consider the use of positive oral contrast in non-traumatic indications for computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis to include appendicitis, bowel obstruction, diverticulitis, intestinal neoplasms and metastasis (screening or staging), or acute abdomen. The review will use the discharge diagnosis as the reference standard. Studies that describe adult patients (18+) and published from 2000 on will be considered.

METHODS

MEDLINE Complete, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus will be searched, along with Google Scholar and numerous radiology college websites. Screening of potential titles and abstracts, retrieval of full-text studies, assessment of methodological quality, and data extraction will be performed independently by two reviewers. Meta-analyses will be performed, if possible, and a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Summary of Findings presented.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO (CRD42020184285).

To Fill or Not to Fill? - Value of the Administration of Positive Rectal Contrast for CT Evaluation of Diverticular Disease of the Colon

PURPOSE

 To assess the value of the administration of positive rectal contrast at CT in patients referred for suspected diverticular disease (DD) of the colon.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 460 patients (253 male, 207 female; median age 62 years; interquartile range 24) with clinical suspicion of DD of the colon were included in this retrospective IRB-approved study. CT was performed with i. v. contrast only (n = 328, group M1), i. v. + positive rectal contrast (n = 82, group M2), neither i. v. nor rectal contrast (n = 32, group S1), or positive rectal contrast only (n = 19, group S2). Two readers in consensus evaluated all CT datasets concerning diagnosis of DD (yes/no) and categorized findings (classification of diverticular disease (CDD)). Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values for the diagnosis of DD were calculated for all groups, using either clinical follow-up (n = 335) or intraoperative findings (n = 125) as the reference standard. In patients undergoing surgery, radiological staging of DD was correlated with the histopathology (weighted Cohen-k).

RESULTS

 224 patients (48.7 %) were diagnosed with DD. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were as follows. Group M1 / M2: 92 %/92 %, 97 %/94 %, 96 %/96 %, 94 %/89 %, respectively; group S1 / S2: 94 %/86 %, 93 %/80 %, 94 %/92 %, 93 %/67 %, respectively. Radiological staging and histopathology correlated substantially in all groups (k = 0.748-0.861).

CONCLUSION

 Abdominal CT had a high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of DD. Disease staging correlated well with the findings at surgery. Additional positive rectal contrast administration did not have a significant advantage and may therefore be omitted in patients with suspected DD.

KEY POINTS

· CT has a high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of DD.. · CT staging using the CDD algorithm correlates very well with surgery.. · Positive rectal contrast administration does not improve diagnosis and radiological staging..

CITATION FORMAT

· Meyer S, Schmidbauer M, Wacker FK et al. To Fill or Not to Fill? - Value of the Administration of Positive Rectal Contrast for CT Evaluation of Diverticular Disease of the Colon. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 804 - 812.

Imaging of acute abdomen in cancer patients

The pattern of disease causing acute abdominal pain has changed over last few decades, some of this has been attributed to intraabdominal cancers. The most common acute abdominal complaints in cancer patients are related to the gastrointestinal system. Abdominal emergencies in cancer patients can result from the underlying malignancy itself, cancer therapy and/or result from the standard pathologies causing acute abdomen in otherwise healthy population. Therapy-related or disease-related immunosuppression or high dose analgesics often blunt many of the findings which are usually expected in non-cancer general population. This complicates the clinical picture rendering the clinical exam less reliable in many cancer patients, and resulting in different pathologies which clinicians and the radiologists should remain aware of. This article focuses on imaging illustrations with differential diagnosis for various emergency scenarios related to acute abdomen specifically in oncologic settings.

Multidetector CT Findings in the Abdomen and Pelvis after Damage Control Surgery for Acute Traumatic Injuries

After experiencing blunt or penetrating trauma, patients in unstable condition who are more likely to die of uncorrected shock than of incomplete injury repairs undergo emergency limited exploratory laparotomy, which is also known as damage control surgery (DCS). This surgery is part of a series of resuscitation steps, with the goal of stabilizing the patient's condition, with rapid surgical control of hemorrhage followed by supportive measures in the intensive care unit before definitive repair of injuries. These patients often are imaged with multidetector CT within 24-48 hours of the initial surgery. Knowledge of this treatment plan is critical to CT interpretation, because there are anatomic derangements and foreign bodies that would not be present in patients undergoing surgery for other reasons. Patients may have injuries beyond the surgical field that are only identified at imaging, which can alter the care plan. Abnormalities related to the resuscitation period such as the CT hypoperfusion complex and ongoing hemorrhage can be recognized at CT. Familiarity with these imaging and clinical findings is important, because they can be seen not only in trauma patients after DCS but also in other patients in the critical care setting. The interpretation of imaging studies can be helped by an understanding of the diagnostic challenges of grading organ injuries with surgical materials in place and the awareness of potential artifacts on images in these patients. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ^©RSNA, 2019 See discussion on this article by LeBedis .

A prospective study comparing water only with positive oral contrast in patients undergoing abdominal CT scan

Consecutive adults scheduled to undergo abdominal CT with oral contrast were asked to choose between 1000 ml water only or positive oral contrast (50 ml Télébrix-Gastro diluted in 950 ml water). Two abdominal radiologists independently reviewed each scan for image quality of the abdomen, the diagnostic confidence per system (gastrointestinalsystem/organs/peritoneum/retroperitoneum/lymph nodes) and overall diagnostic confidence to address the clinical question (not able/partial able/fully able). Radiation exposure was extracted from dose reports. Differences between both groups were evaluated by Student’s t-test, Mann-Whitney-U-test or chi-square-test. Of the 320participants, 233chose water only. All baseline characteristics, image quality of the abdomen and the diagnostic confidence of the organs were comparable between groups and both observers. Diagnostic confidence in the water only group was more commonly scored as less than good by observer1. The results were as follows: the gastrointestinal system(18/233vs1/87; p = 0.031), peritoneum (21/233vs1/87; p = 0.012), retroperitoneum (11/233vs0/87; p = 0.040) and lymph nodes (11/233vs0/87; p = 0.040). These structures were scored as comparable between both groups by observer2. The diagnostic confidence to address the clinical question could be partially addressed in 6/233 vs 0/87 patients (p = 0.259). The water only group showed a tendency towards less radiation exposure. In summary, most scan ratings were comparable between positive contrast and water only, but slightly favored positive oral contrast for one reader for some abdominal structures. Therefore, water only can replace positive oral contrast in the majority of the outpatients scheduled to undergo an abdominal CT.

Positive Oral Contrast Material for Abdominal CT: Current Clinical Indications and Areas of Controversy

OBJECTIVE. The use of positive oral contrast material for abdominal CT is a frequent protocol issue. Confusion abounds regarding its use, and practice patterns often appear arbitrary. Turning to the existing literature for answers is unrewarding, because most studies are underpowered or not designed to address key endpoints. Even worse, many decisions are now being driven by nonradiologists for throughput gains rather than patient-specific considerations. Herein, the current indications for positive oral contrast material are discussed, including areas of controversy. CONCLUSION. As radiologists, we owe it to our patients to drive the appropriate use of positive oral contrast material. At the very least, we should not allow nonradiologists to restrict its use solely on the basis of throughput concerns; rather, we should allow considerations of image quality and diagnostic confidence to enter into the decision process. Based on differences in prior training and practice patterns, some radiologists will prefer to limit the use of positive oral contrast material more than others. However, for those who believe (as I do) that it can genuinely increase diagnostic confidence and can sometimes (rather unpredictably) make a major impact on diagnosis, it behooves us to keep fighting for its use.

Evaluation of neutral oral contrast agents for assessment of the small bowel at abdominal staging CT

BACKGROUND

Although neutral oral contrast agents are widely in use, a consensus regarding a standardized protocol in abdominal staging CT does not exist.

PURPOSE

To test the null hypothesis that there is no quantitative or qualitative difference between water and mannitol for evaluation of the small bowel at abdominal staging CT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

180 patients prospectively underwent abdominal staging CT with oral administration of either 1 liter mannitol solution (n = 88) or water (n = 92). Intestinal distension was measured in 6 different segments of the small intestine. In addition, two radiologists separately evaluated diagnostic image quality with regards to luminal distension (three-point scale) in each segment and the possibility to rule out a possible underlying pathology. Quantitative and qualitative results were compared (Mann-Whitney test).

RESULTS

Quantitatively, intestinal distension was comparable in all segments (p>0.05), except for the horizontal duodenum (p = 0.019). The mean luminal diameter over all intestinal segments was 19.0 mm (18.1-19.9 mm) for the water group and 18.4 mm (17.5-19.2 mm) for the mannitol group, respectively. Qualitatively, ratings were comparable for the first three segments, while distal segments were rated better using mannitol. Side effects were only observed using mannitol (n = 26; 29.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Orally administered water and mannitol solution for evaluation of the small bowel at abdominal staging CT in clinical routine resulted in comparable results for the quantitative, but not for the qualitative analysis. Looking more differentiated at the overall performance, water has advantages in terms of patient comfort, side effects and costs, and can therefore be regarded as noninferior to mannitol in this specific patient group.

Comparison of Positive Oral Contrast Agents for Abdominopelvic CT

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to compare the quality of bowel opacification from three different positive oral contrast agents-barium sulfate, diatrizoate, and iohexol-at abdominopelvic CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Abdominopelvic CT examinations with three different oral contrast agents (each contrast agent: n = 300 patients) of 900 patients were retrospectively evaluated by two independent readers. For four segments of the gastrointestinal tract (i.e., the stomach, jejunum, ileum, and colon), readers recorded qualitative data (grade of nonuniform lumen opacification, types of inhomogeneous opacifications, presence of artifacts, and distribution of contrast agent) and quantitative data (CT attenuation of lumen [in Hounsfield units]). The results were compared among the three contrast agents using the Mann-Whitney U test and repeated-measures ANOVA with a post hoc Bonferroni correction. RESULTS. Fewer artifacts were detected with iohexol (4.3%) as the oral contrast agent than with diatrizoate (13.0%) and barium sulfate (14.3%) (each, p < 0.05). Barium showed a greater frequency of bowel lumen heterogeneity (388/831 segments, 47%) than iohexol (155/679, 23%) and diatrizoate (185/763, 24% segments) (p < 0.001). Barium showed higher CT attenuation than iohexol and diatrizoate in the stomach but lower CT attenuation in the ileum (each, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION. The frequency of inhomogeneous bowel opacification was lower for iohexol than for diatrizoate or barium sulfate. Barium showed the highest frequency of bowel lumen heterogeneity. The iodinated agents showed greater increases in mean CT attenuation from the proximal bowel segments to the distal bowel segments than barium sulfate.

Impact of low-kVp scan technique on oral contrast density at abdominopelvic CT

PURPOSE

To assess quantitative and qualitative effects of kVp on oral contrast density.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three readers retrospectively reviewed 100 CT scans performed at a range of high- and low-energy settings, independently determining their preferred window and level settings for evaluation of the oral-contrast-opacified bowel. Contrast density was also assessed quantitatively in the stomach, jejunum, and ileum. Subsequently, a range of oral contrast dilutions were imaged at varying kVp's in a commercially available CIRS tissue equivalent phantom model.

RESULTS

In the retrospective patient study, mean oral contrast density increased significantly in the ileum compared to the jejunum (455.2 and 308.8 HU, respectively, p < 0.01). Similar findings were seen in patients regardless of patients' weight. Mean oral contrast density was higher on lower-energy scans, requiring more window/level adjustment. An oral contrast iodine concentration of 5.82-7.77 mg I/mL most closely approximated a target oral contrast density of 200 HU.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral contrast density is strongly influenced by kVp, supporting use of more dilute oral contrast when using lower-kVp techniques.

The role of multislice computed tomography (MSCT) angiography in the diagnosis and therapy of non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia (NOMI): Could MSCT replace DSA in diagnosis?

Objectives

Evaluation of multislice-CT (MSCT) during diagnosis and therapeutic decision-making in patients with suspected non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia (NOMI).

Methods

Retrospective, institutional review board-approved study of 30 patients (20 men, 10 women, mean age 64.6±14.2 years, range 24–87 years) undergoing biphasic abdominal MSCT followed by digital subtraction angiography (DSA) due to suspected NOMI. MSCT and DSA were qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated independently by two radiologists with respect to the possible diagnosis of NOMI. MSCT analysis included quantitative measurements, qualitative evaluation of contrast enhancement and assessment of secondary findings (bowel wall thickening, hypo-enhancement, intestinal pneumatosis). MSCT diagnosis and secondary findings were compared against DSA diagnosis.

Results

NOMI was diagnosed in a total of n = 28 patients. No differences were found when comparing the R1-rated MSCT diagnosis (p = 0.09) to the “gold standard”, while MSCT diagnosis was slightly inferior with R2 (p = 0.02). With R1, vessel-associated parameters revealed the best correlation, i.e. qualitative vessel width (r = -0.39;p = 0.03) and vessel contrast (r = 0.45;p = 0.01). Moderate correlations were found for quantitative vessel diameters in the middle segments (r = -0.48,p = 0.01), increasing to almost high correlations in the distal (r = -0.66;p<0.00001) superior mesenteric artery (SMA) segments. No significant correlation was apparent from secondary findings.

Conclusions

MSCT is an appropriate non-invasive method for diagnosing NOMI and leads to adequate and immediate therapeutic stratification.

Utility of CT oral contrast administration in the emergency department of a quaternary oncology hospital: diagnostic implications, turnaround times, and assessment of ED physician ordering

PURPOSE

To compare studies with and without oral contrast on performance of multidetector computed tomography (CT) and the order to CT examination turnaround time in cancer patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). To the best of our knowledge, oral contrast utility has not previously been specifically assessed in cancer patients presenting to the emergency department.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Retrospective review of CT abdomen examinations performed in oncology patients presenting to the emergency department during one month. CT examinations performed with and without oral contrast were rated by two consensus readers for degree of confidence and diagnostic ability. Correlations were assessed for primary cancer type, age, sex, chief complaint/examination indication, body mass index, intravenous contrast status, repeat CT examination within 4 weeks, and disposition. Turnaround times from order to the start of the CT examination were calculated.

RESULTS

The studied group consisted of 267 patients (127 men and 140 women) with a mean age of 56 years and a mean body mass index of 27.8 kg/m². One hundred sixty CT examinations were performed without oral contrast, and 107 CT examinations were performed with oral contrast. There was no significant difference between cases with oral contrast and cases without oral contrast in the number of cases rated as "improved confidence" (odds ratio [OR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-1.31, P = 0.17), "improved diagnosis" (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.20-1.64, P = 0.3), "impaired confidence" (OR 3.92, 95% CI 0.46-33.06, P = 0.21), or "impaired diagnosis" (OR 2.63, 95% CI 0.29-23.89, P = 0.39). The turnaround time in the group receiving oral contrast (mean, 141 min; standard deviation, 49.8 min) was significantly longer than that in the group not receiving oral contrast (mean, 109.2 min; standard deviation, 64.8 min) with a mean difference of 31.8 min (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

On the basis of our findings and prior studies, targeted rather than default use of oral contrast shows acceptable diagnostic ability in the emergency setting for oncology patients. Benefit from oral contrast use is suggested in scenarios such as suspected fistula/bowel leak/abscess, hypoattenuating peritoneal disease, prior bowel surgery such as gastric bypass, and the absence of intravenous contrast administration. Improvement through the use of targeted oral contrast administration also supports the emergency department need for prompt diagnosis and disposition.

CT for Acute Nontraumatic Abdominal Pain-Is Oral Contrast Really Required?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study aims to compare the diagnostic performance of abdominal computed tomography (CT) performed with and without oral contrast in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute nontraumatic abdominal pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between December 2013 and December 2014, 348 adult patients presenting to the ED of a large tertiary medical center with nontraumatic abdominal pain were evaluated. Exclusion criteria for the study were history of inflammatory bowel disease, recent abdominal operation and suspected renal colic, abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture, or intestinal obstruction. All patients underwent intravenous contrast-enhanced abdominal CT on a Philips Brilliance 64-slice scanner using a routine abdomen protocol. The study group included 174 patients who underwent abdominal CT scanning without oral contrast, recruited using convenience sampling. A control group of 174 patients was matched to the cohort groups' gender and age and underwent abdominal CT with oral contrast material during the same time period. The patients' medical records were reviewed for various clinical findings and for the final clinical diagnosis. The CT exams were initially reviewed by a senior attending radiologist to determine the exams' technical adequacy and to decide whether an additional scan with oral contrast was required. Two senior radiologists, blinded to the clinical diagnosis, later performed consensus reading to determine the contribution of oral contrast administration to the radiologists' diagnostic confidence and its influence on diagnosing various radiological findings.

RESULTS

Each group consisted of 82 men and 92 women. The average age of the two groups was 48 years. The main clinical diagnoses of the pathological examinations were appendicitis (17.5%), diverticulitis (10.9%), and colitis (5.2%). A normal CT examination was found in 34.8% of the patients. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding most of the clinical parameters that were examined. None of the examinations of all of the 174 study group patients was found to be technically inadequate, and therefore no patient had to undergo additional scanning to establish a diagnosis. The consensus reading of the senior radiologists determined that the lack of oral contrast was insignificant in 96.6% of the cases and that contrast material might have been useful in only 6 of 174 study group patients (3.4%). The radiologists found oral contrast to be helpful only in 8 of 174 control group patients (4.6%). There was no significant difference between the clinical and radiological diagnoses in both groups (study group, P = 0.261; control group, P = 0.075).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that oral contrast is noncontributory to radiological diagnosis in most patients presenting to the ED with acute nontraumatic abdominal pain. These patients can therefore undergo abdominal CT scanning without oral contrast, with no effect on radiological diagnostic performance.

Impact of low-energy CT imaging on selection of positive oral contrast media concentration

OBJECTIVES

To determine to what extent low-energy CT imaging affects attenuation of gastrointestinal tract (GIT) opacified with positive oral contrast media (OCM). Second, to establish optimal OCM concentrations for low-energy diagnostic CT exams.

METHODS

One hundred patients (38 men and 62 women; age 62 ± 11 years; BMI 26 ± 5) with positive OCM-enhanced 120-kVp single-energy CT (SECT), and follow-up 100-kVp acquisitions (group A; n = 50), or 40-70-keV reconstructions from rapid kV switching-single-source dual-energy CT (ssDECT) (group B; n = 50) were included. Luminal attenuation from different GIT segments was compared between exams. Standard dose of three OCM and diluted solutions (75%, 50%, and 25% concentrations) were introduced serially in a gastrointestinal phantom and scanned using SECT (120, 100, and 80 kVp) and DECT (80/140 kVp) acquisitions on a ssDECT scanner. Luminal attenuation was obtained on SECT and DECT images (40-70 keV), and compared to 120-kVp scans with standard OCM concentrations.

RESULTS

Luminal attenuation was higher on 100-kVp (328 HU) and on 40-60-keV images (410-924 HU) in comparison to 120-kVp scans (298 HU) in groups A and B (p < 0.05). Phantom: There was an inverse correlation between luminal attenuation and X-ray energy, increasing up to 527 HU on low-kVp and 999 HU on low-keV images (p < 0.05). 25% and 50% diluted OCM solutions provided similar or higher attenuation than 120 kVp, at low kVp and keV, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-energy CT imaging increases the attenuation of GIT opacified with positive OCM, permitting reduction of 25%-75% OCM concentration.

A new technique for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: abdominal CT with compression to the right lower quadrant

OBJECTIVE

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of abdominal CT with compression to the right lower quadrant (RLQ) in adults with acute appendicitis.

METHODS

168 patients (age range, 18-78 years) were included who underwent contrast-enhanced CT for suspected appendicitis performed either using compression to the RLQ (n = 71) or a standard protocol (n = 97). Outer diameter of the appendix, appendiceal wall thickening, luminal content and associated findings were evaluated in each patient. Kruskal-Wallis, Fisher's and Pearson's chi-squared tests were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the mean outer diameter (MOD) between compression CT scans (10.6 ± 1.9 mm) and standard protocol (11.2 ± 2.3 mm) in patients with acute appendicitis (P = 1). MOD was significantly lower in the compression group (5.2 ± 0.8 mm) compared to the standard protocol (6.5 ± 1.1 mm) (P < 0.01) in patients without appendicitis. A cut-off value of 6.75 mm for the outer diameter of the appendix was found to be 100% sensitive in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis for both groups. The specificity was higher for compression CT technique (67.7 vs. 94.9%).

CONCLUSION

Normal appendix diameter was significantly smaller in the compression-CT group compared to standard-CT group, increasing diagnostic accuracy of abdominal compression CT.

KEY POINTS

• Normal appendix diameter is significantly smaller in compression CT. • Compression could force contrast material to flow through the appendiceal lumen. • Compression CT may be a CT counterpart of graded compression US.

Acute gastrointestinal vaso-occlusive ischemia in sickle cell disease: CT imaging features and clinical outcome

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence, specific imaging features, and outcome of gastrointestinal vaso-occlusive ischemia (GVOI) in sickle cell patients undergoing CT for acute abdominal pain.

METHODS

This HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved retrospective study evaluated sickle cell patients with an abdominal pain crisis and acute gastrointestinal abnormalities on CT from 1/2006 to 1/2014. CT findings were divided into those compatible and incompatible with bowel ischemia or clinical diagnosis of GVOI. Two abdominal radiologists (1, 13 years' experience) reviewed the CTs for specific imaging features of ischemia. Clinical laboratory values (lactate, WBC) and outcome were recorded. Descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney two-sample rank-sum test were performed.

RESULTS

Of 217 CTs, 33 had acute gastrointestinal abnormalities: 75% (25/33) consistent with ischemia and clinical GVOI. Complications of ischemia occurred in 16% (4/25): ileus (50%), perforation (25%), and pneumatosis (25%). In uncomplicated cases, all had bowel wall thickening: segmental 52% (11/21) or diffuse 48% (10/21). The colon was commonly involved (76%, 16/21), particularly the ascending (57%, 12/21). Most abnormalities (52%, 11/21) were in the superior mesenteric artery distribution. Average lactate (4.3 ± 4.0 mmol/L, p = 0.02) and WBC count (20.1 ± 10.4, ×1000 cells/μL, p = 0.01) were significantly higher in GVOI. Overall mortality in patients with GVOI was 17% (3/18).

CONCLUSION

GVOI is an important feature of the acute abdominal crisis in patients with sickle cell disease and can be seen in up to 75% of patients with abnormal bowel findings on CT. The diagnosis should be strongly considered in sickle cell patients with CT findings of diffuse or segmental bowel wall thickening, particularly involving the colon.