The value of unenhanced CT in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis

Imaging of Gastrointestinal Tract Ailments

Gastrointestinal (GI) disorders comprise a diverse range of conditions that can significantly reduce the quality of life and can even be life-threatening in serious cases. The development of accurate and rapid detection approaches is of essential importance for early diagnosis and timely management of GI diseases. This review mainly focuses on the imaging of several representative gastrointestinal ailments, such as inflammatory bowel disease, tumors, appendicitis, Meckel's diverticulum, and others. Various imaging modalities commonly used for the gastrointestinal tract, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET) and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), and photoacoustic tomography (PAT) and multimodal imaging with mode overlap are summarized. These achievements in single and multimodal imaging provide useful guidance for improved diagnosis, staging, and treatment of the corresponding gastrointestinal diseases. The review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of different imaging techniques and summarizes the development of imaging techniques used for diagnosing gastrointestinal ailments.

Computed tomography for diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adults

BACKGROUND

Diagnosing acute appendicitis (appendicitis) based on clinical evaluation, blood testing, and urinalysis can be difficult. Therefore, in persons with suspected appendicitis, abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) is often used as an add-on test following the initial evaluation to reduce remaining diagnostic uncertainty. The aim of using CT is to assist the clinician in discriminating between persons who need surgery with appendicectomy and persons who do not.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective Our primary objective was to evaluate the accuracy of CT for diagnosing appendicitis in adults with suspected appendicitis. Secondary objectives Our secondary objectives were to compare the accuracy of contrast-enhanced versus non-contrast-enhanced CT, to compare the accuracy of low-dose versus standard-dose CT, and to explore the influence of CT-scanner generation, radiologist experience, degree of clinical suspicion of appendicitis, and aspects of methodological quality on diagnostic accuracy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 16 June 2017. We also searched references lists. We did not exclude studies on the basis of language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective studies that compared results of CT versus outcomes of a reference standard in adults (> 14 years of age) with suspected appendicitis. We excluded studies recruiting only pregnant women; studies in persons with abdominal pain at any location and with no particular suspicion of appendicitis; studies in which all participants had undergone ultrasonography (US) before CT and the decision to perform CT depended on the US outcome; studies using a case-control design; studies with fewer than 10 participants; and studies that did not report the numbers of true-positives, false-positives, false-negatives, and true-negatives. Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently collected the data from each study and evaluated methodological quality according to the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy - Revised (QUADAS-2) tool. We used the bivariate random-effects model to obtain summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 64 studies including 71 separate study populations with a total of 10,280 participants (4583 with and 5697 without acute appendicitis). Estimates of sensitivity ranged from 0.72 to 1.0 and estimates of specificity ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 across the 71 study populations. Summary sensitivity was 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 0.96), and summary specificity was 0.94 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.95). At the median prevalence of appendicitis (0.43), the probability of having appendicitis following a positive CT result was 0.92 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.94), and the probability of having appendicitis following a negative CT result was 0.04 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.05). In subgroup analyses according to contrast enhancement, summary sensitivity was higher for CT with intravenous contrast (0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.98), CT with rectal contrast (0.97, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.99), and CT with intravenous and oral contrast enhancement (0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.98) than for unenhanced CT (0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.93). Summary sensitivity of CT with oral contrast enhancement (0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94) and unenhanced CT was similar. Results show practically no differences in summary specificity, which varied from 0.93 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.95) to 0.95 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.98) between subgroups. Summary sensitivity for low-dose CT (0.94, 95% 0.90 to 0.97) was similar to summary sensitivity for standard-dose or unspecified-dose CT (0.95, 95% 0.93 to 0.96); summary specificity did not differ between low-dose and standard-dose or unspecified-dose CT. No studies had high methodological quality as evaluated by the QUADAS-2 tool. Major methodological problems were poor reference standards and partial verification primarily due to inadequate and incomplete follow-up in persons who did not have surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity and specificity of CT for diagnosing appendicitis in adults are high. Unenhanced standard-dose CT appears to have lower sensitivity than standard-dose CT with intravenous, rectal, or oral and intravenous contrast enhancement. Use of different types of contrast enhancement or no enhancement does not appear to affect specificity. Differences in sensitivity and specificity between low-dose and standard-dose CT appear to be negligible. The results of this review should be interpreted with caution for two reasons. First, these results are based on studies of low methodological quality. Second, the comparisons between types of contrast enhancement and radiation dose may be unreliable because they are based on indirect comparisons that may be confounded by other factors.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Noncontrast CT in Detecting Acute Appendicitis: A Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies

The aim of the study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of noncontrast CT in detecting acute appendicitis. Prospective studies in which noncontrast CT was performed to evaluate acute appendicitis were found on PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were assessed. The summary receiver-operating characteristic curve was conducted and the area under the curve was calculated. Seven original studies investigating a total of 845 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86–0.92) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92–0.97), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio was 12.90 (95% CI: 4.80–34.67), 0.09 (95% CI: 0.04–0.20), and 162.76 (95% CI: 31.05–853.26), respectively. The summary receiver-operating characteristic curve was symmetrical and the area under the curve was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95–0.99). In conclusion, noncontrast CT has high diagnostic accuracy in detecting acute appendicitis, which is adequate for clinical decision making.

Clinical policy: Critical issues in the evaluation and management of emergency department patients with suspected appendicitis

This clinical policy from the American College of Emergency Physicians is an update of a 2000 clinical policy on the evaluation and management of patients presenting with nontraumatic acute abdominal pain.1 A writing subcommittee reviewed the literature to derive evidence-based recommendations to help clinicians answer the following critical questions: (1)Can clinical findings be used to guide decision making in the risk stratification of patients with possible appendicitis? (2) In adult patients with suspected acute appendicitis who are undergoing a computed tomography scan, what is the role of contrast? (3) In children with suspected acute appendicitis who undergo diagnostic imaging, what are the roles of computed tomography and ultrasound in diagnosing acute appendicitis?Evidence was graded and recommendations were given based on the strength of the available data in the medical literature.

Diagnostic accuracy of noncontrast computed tomography for appendicitis in adults: a systematic review

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We seek to determine the diagnostic test characteristics of noncontrast computed tomography (CT) for appendicitis in the adult emergency department (ED) population.

METHODS

We conducted a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the bibliographies of previous systematic reviews. Included studies assessed the diagnostic accuracy of noncontrast CT for acute appendicitis in adults by using the final diagnosis at surgery or follow-up at a minimum of 2 weeks as the reference standard. Studies were included only if the CT was completed using a multislice helical scanner. Two authors independently conducted the relevance screen of titles and abstracts, selected studies for the final inclusion, extracted data, and assessed study quality. Consensus was reached by conference, and any disagreements were adjudicated by a third reviewer. Unenhanced CT test performance was assessed with summary receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, with independently pooled sensitivity and specificity values across studies.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1,258 publications; 7 studies met the inclusion criteria and provided a sample of 1,060 patients. The included studies were of high methodological quality with respect to appropriate patient spectrum and reference standard. Our pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity were 92.7% (95% confidence interval 89.5% to 95.0%) and 96.1% (95% confidence interval 94.2% to 97.5%), respectively; the positive likelihood ratio=24 and the negative likelihood ratio=0.08.

CONCLUSION

We found the diagnostic accuracy of noncontrast CT for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the adult population to be adequate for clinical decisionmaking in the ED setting.

O valor da fase sem contraste na tomografia computadorizada do abdome

OBJETIVO: Determinar o valor agregado da fase sem meio de contraste da tomografia computadorizada do abdome em pacientes sem diagnóstico determinado ou em estadiamento tumoral. MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Estudo prospectivo e transversal em 100 pacientes consecutivos submetidos a tomografia computadorizada abdominal sem e com meio de contraste intravenoso. Dois examinadores avaliaram todos os exames, procurando estabelecer, através da fase com meio de contraste intravenoso (primeira análise) e posteriormente através da fase sem contraste (segunda análise), o diagnóstico principal e os secundários em função da indicação clínica do exame. Mediu-se a freqüência de mudança diagnóstica decorrente da análise combinada das fases pré- e pós-contraste intravenoso. Casos que tiveram mudança diagnóstica foram avaliados por especialistas clínicos para determinar se implicaria mudanças de conduta. RESULTADOS: Diagnósticos principal e secundário foram modificados em 1 e 18 casos, respectivamente (p = 1,000; p = 0,143). Os diagnósticos modificados foram: esteatose, definição de nódulo em adrenal, nefrolitíase, classificação de cistos renais e calcificação hepática. Nos casos em que a fase sem contraste modificou o diagnóstico, os especialistas mudaram sua conduta em 14/19 (73%) dos pacientes (p = 0,038). CONCLUSÃO: A fase sem contraste não modificou significativamente o diagnóstico principal ou secundário. Porém, as mudanças nos diagnósticos secundários influenciaram na conduta adotada pelos especialistas.

Tomografia computadorizada sem contraste intravenoso no abdome agudo: quando e por que usar

A tomografia computadorizada sem contraste intravenoso tem sido freqüentemente proposta na avaliação inicial de pacientes com suspeita de abdome agudo, ocupando o espaço de outros métodos diagnósticos. Os autores apresentam uma revisão bibliográfica dos principais aspectos e eficácia da tomografia computadorizada sem contraste intravenoso no diagnóstico de apendicite aguda, cólica nefrética, diverticulite, pancreatite aguda, apendicite epiplóica, pneumoperitônio e obstrução intestinal. Discutem quais as vantagens e limitações desta técnica de exame, bem como seus aspectos práticos.

Acute appendicitis: effect of increased use of CT on selecting patients earlier

PURPOSE

To explore the possibility of a relationship between increased use of computed tomography (CT) for diagnosis of appendicitis and increased occurrence of minimal or subtle CT and surgical findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two groups, each with 50 consecutive patients who underwent CT before appendectomy in 1997 and 2000, were compared. CT scans and surgery-pathology reports were evaluated on a six-grade scale from normal to abscess or inflammatory mass. The demographics, surgical techniques, hospital stay, and grade distribution for the two groups were compared, and the CT results were correlated with surgical findings.

RESULTS

In 1997, CT was performed in 33% (50 of 152) of patients undergoing appendectomy, as compared with 59% (50 of 85) 3 years later (P <.001). There was excellent correlation between surgical-pathologic and CT grades (weighted kappa, 0.75; P <.001; Spearman rank correlation, 0.83). There was no significant difference in demographics, rate of surgery, or surgical techniques used, but there was a significant decrease in the median surgical-pathologic grades, from 3.0 to 2.5 (P =.05) for all patients and from 3.5 to 2.6 (P =.003) for patients who underwent CT. Similarly, the median CT grade decreased from 4 to 3 (P <.001). Seven patients had subtle CT findings in 1997 compared with 16 in 2000 (P =.004), and there was a significant decrease in mean hospital stay, from 2.8 days +/- 4 (SD) to 1.5 days +/- 2 (P =.008).

CONCLUSION

With increased CT use, there were less severe imaging findings, including absence of periappendiceal stranding, and a significant decrease in surgical-pathologic severity of appendiceal disease and hospital stay.

Nonenhanced limited CT in children suspected of having appendicitis: prospective comparison of attending and resident interpretations

PURPOSE

To prospectively compare resident and attending radiologic interpretations of nonenhanced limited computed tomographic (CT) scans obtained in children suspected of having appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-five consecutive children underwent nonenhanced limited CT for suspected appendicitis. The scans were prospectively interpreted by a resident and an attending radiologist, each unaware of the other's interpretation. The probability that the findings indicated a diagnosis of appendicitis, level of certainty in the interpretation, and presence of an alternate diagnosis were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Nineteen children (25%) had appendicitis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was not significantly different between residents (0.97 +/- 0.02) and attendings (0.95 +/- 0.04). The percentage agreement between residents and attendings was 91% (kappa = 0.73 +/- 0.095). The average level of certainty tended to be higher for attendings (93% +/- 15) than residents (89% +/- 12). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of resident interpretations were 63%, 96%, and 88%, respectively, compared with those of attending interpretations--95%, 98%, and 97%, respectively. Residents and attendings noted alternate diagnoses in 30% of children without appendicitis.

CONCLUSION

A high level of agreement exists between resident and attending radiologists in the interpretation of nonenhanced limited CT scans in children suspected of having appendicitis. Residents, however, tend to be less confident in their interpretations.