LOW-DOSE CT PROTOCOL OPTIMIZATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF ACUTE APPENDICITIS: THE OPTICAP PHANTOM STUDY

Diagnostic accuracy using low-dose versus standard radiation dose CT in suspected acute appendicitis: prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Contrast-enhanced CT is the reference standard used in diagnostic imaging for acute appendicitis in adults. The radiation dose has been of concern. This study aimed to assess whether a lower radiation dose would affect the diagnostic accuracy of CT.

METHODS

This was a prospective single-centre cohort study of patients (aged over 16 years) with suspected appendicitis evaluated for enrolment in concurrent APPAC II-III trials. The diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced low- and standard-dose CT was compared with study protocols guiding imaging based on BMI; this enabled direct CT imaging comparison only in patients with a BMI below 30 kg/m2. The on-call CT diagnosis was compared with the final clinical diagnosis.

RESULTS

Among all 856 patients investigated, the accuracy of low-dose (454 patients) and standard-dose (402 patients) CT in identifying patients with and without appendicitis was 98·0 and 98·5 per cent respectively. In patients with a BMI under 30 kg/m2, respective values were 98·2 per cent (434 patients) and 98·6 per cent (210 patients) (P = 1·000). The corresponding accuracy for differentiating between uncomplicated and complicated acute appendicitis was 90·3 and 87·6 per cent in all patients, and 89·8 and 88·4 per cent respectively among those with a BMI below 30 kg/m2 (P = 0·663). The median radiation dose in the whole low- and standard-dose CT groups was 3 and 7 mSv respectively. In the group with BMI below 30 kg/m2, corresponding median doses were 3 and 5 mSv (P < 0·001).

CONCLUSION

Low- and standard-dose CT were accurate both in identifying appendicitis and in differentiating between uncomplicated and complicated acute appendicitis. Low-dose CT was associated with a significant radiation dose reduction, suggesting that it should be standard clinical practice at least in patients with a BMI below 30 kg/m2.

A comprehensive assessment of physical image quality of five different scanners for head CT imaging as clinically used at a single hospital centre-A phantom study

Nowadays, given the technological advance in CT imaging and increasing heterogeneity in characteristics of CT scanners, a number of CT scanners with different manufacturers/technologies are often installed in a hospital centre and used by various departments. In this phantom study, a comprehensive assessment of image quality of 5 scanners (from 3 manufacturers and with different models) for head CT imaging, as clinically used at a single hospital centre, was hence carried out. Helical and/or sequential acquisitions of the Catphan-504 phantom were performed, using the scanning protocols (CTDI_vol range: 54.7–57.5 mGy) employed by the staff of various Radiology/Neuroradiology departments of our institution for routine head examinations. CT image quality for each scanner/acquisition protocol was assessed through noise level, noise power spectrum (NPS), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), modulation transfer function (MTF), low contrast detectability (LCD) and non-uniformity index analyses. Noise values ranged from 3.5 HU to 5.7 HU across scanners/acquisition protocols. NPS curves differed in terms of peak position (range: 0.21–0.30 mm^-1). A substantial variation of CNR values with scanner/acquisition protocol was observed for different contrast inserts. The coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by mean value) of CNR values across scanners/acquisition protocols was 18.3%, 31.4%, 34.2%, 30.4% and 30% for teflon, delrin, LDPE, polystyrene and acrylic insert, respectively. An appreciable difference in MTF curves across scanners/acquisition protocols was revealed, with a coefficient of variation of f_50%/f_10% of MTF curves across scanners/acquisition protocols of 10.1%/7.4%. A relevant difference in LCD performance of different scanners/acquisition protocols was found. The range of contrast threshold for a typical object size of 3 mm was 3.7–5.8 HU. Moreover, appreciable differences in terms of NUI values (range: 4.1%-8.3%) were found. The analysis of several quality indices showed a non-negligible variability in head CT imaging capabilities across different scanners/acquisition protocols. This highlights the importance of a physical in-depth characterization of image quality for each CT scanner as clinically used, in order to optimize CT imaging procedures.

The Accuracy of Low-dose Computed Tomography Protocol in Patients With Suspected Acute Appendicitis: The OPTICAP Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare diagnostic accuracy of contrast enhanced low-dose computed tomography (CT) accomplished in the OPTICAP trial phantom phase to standard CT in patients with suspected acute appendicitis.

BACKGROUND

Increasing use of CT as the gold standard in diagnosing acute appendicitis has raised concerns regarding radiation exposure. Unenhanced low-dose CT protocols have shown similar diagnostic accuracy with standard CT for diagnosing appendicitis. To our knowledge, there are no other trials in which the same patient with suspected acute appendicitis underwent both standard and low-dose CT allowing interpatient comparison.

METHODS

OPTICAP is an interpatient protocol sequence randomized noninferiority single-center trial performed at Turku University Hospital between November, 2015 and August, 2016. Sixty patients with suspected acute appendicitis and body mass index <30 kg/m were enrolled to undergo both standard and low-dose contrast enhanced CT scans, which were categorized as normal, uncomplicated or complicated appendicitis by 2 radiologists in blinded manner. All patients with CT confirmed appendicitis underwent appendectomy to obtain histopathology.

RESULTS

The low-dose protocol was not inferior to standard protocol in terms of diagnostic accuracy; 79% [95% confidence interval (CI) 66%-89%) accurate diagnosis in low-dose and 80% (95% CI 67%-90%) in standard CT by primary radiologist. Accuracy to categorize appendicitis severity was 79% for both protocols. The mean radiation dose of low-dose CT was significantly lower compared with standard CT (3.33 and 4.44 mSv, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast enhanced low-dose CT was not inferior to standard CT in diagnosing acute appendicitis or distinguishing between uncomplicated and complicated acute appendicitis in patients with a high likelihood of acute appendicitis. Low-dose CT enabled significant radiation dose reduction.

Optimising the antibiotic treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: a protocol for a multicentre randomised clinical trial (APPAC II trial)

BACKGROUND

Based on epidemiological and clinical data acute appendicitis can present either as uncomplicated (70-80%) or complicated (20-30%) disease. Recent studies have shown that antibiotic therapy is both safe and cost-effective for a CT-scan confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis. However, based on the study protocols to ensure patient safety, these randomised studies used mainly broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics requiring additional hospital resources and prolonged hospital stay. As we now know that antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis is feasible and safe, further studies evaluating optimisation of the antibiotic treatment regarding both antibiotic spectrum and shorter hospital stay are needed to evaluate antibiotics as the first-line treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

METHODS

APPAC II trial is a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial comparing per oral (p.o.) antibiotic monotherapy with intravenous (i.v.) antibiotic therapy followed by p.o. antibiotics in the treatment of CT-scan confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Adult patients with CT-scan diagnosed uncomplicated acute appendicitis will be enrolled in nine Finnish hospitals. The intended sample size is 552 patients. Primary endpoint is the success of the randomised treatment, defined as resolution of acute appendicitis resulting in discharge from the hospital without the need for surgical intervention and no recurrent appendicitis during one-year follow-up. Secondary endpoints include post-intervention complications, late recurrence of acute appendicitis after one year, duration of hospital stay, pain, quality of life, sick leave and treatment costs. Primary endpoint will be evaluated in two stages: point estimates with 95% confidence interval (CI) will be calculated for both groups and proportion difference between groups with 95% CI will be calculated and evaluated based on 6 percentage point non-inferiority margin.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, APPAC II trial is the first randomised controlled trial comparing per oral antibiotic monotherapy with intravenous antibiotic therapy continued by per oral antibiotics in the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. The APPAC II trial aims to add clinical evidence on the debated role of antibiotics as the first-line treatment for a CT-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis as well as to optimise the non-operative treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov , NCT03236961, retrospectively registered on the 2nd of August 2017.

A randomised placebo-controlled double-blind multicentre trial comparing antibiotic therapy with placebo in the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: APPAC III trial study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Recent studies show that antibiotic therapy is safe and feasible for CT-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Spontaneous resolution of acute appendicitis has already been observed over a hundred years ago. In CT-confirmed uncomplicated acute diverticulitis (left-sided appendicitis), studies have shown no benefit from antibiotics compared with symptomatic treatment, but this shift from antibiotics to symptomatic treatment has not yet been widely implemented in clinical practice. Recently, symptomatic treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis has been demonstrated in a Korean open-label study. However, a double-blinded placebo-controlled study to illustrate the role of antibiotics and spontaneous resolution of uncomplicated acute appendicitis is still lacking.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The APPAC III (APPendicitis ACuta III) trial is a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, superiority randomised study comparing antibiotic therapy with placebo in the treatment CT scan-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis aiming to evaluate the role of antibiotics in the resolution of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Adult patients (18-60 years) with CT scan-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis (the absence of appendicolith, abscess, perforation and tumour) will be enrolled in five Finnish university hospitals.Primary endpoint is success of the randomised treatment, defined as resolution of acute appendicitis resulting in discharge from the hospital without surgical intervention within 10 days after initiating randomised treatment (treatment efficacy). Secondary endpoints include postintervention complications, recurrent symptoms after treatment up to 1 year, late recurrence of acute appendicitis after 1 year, duration of hospital stay, sick leave, treatment costs and quality of life. A decrease of 15 percentage points in success rate is considered clinically important difference. The superiority of antibiotic treatment compared with placebo will be analysed using Fisher's one-sided test and CI will be calculated for proportion difference.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Turku University Hospital and the Finnish Medicines Agency (FIMEA). The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed academic journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03234296; Pre-results.