Low-Dose Abdominal CT for Evaluating Suspected Appendicitis: Recommendations for CT Imaging Techniques and Practical Issues

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.

CT in Differentiating Complicated From Uncomplicated Appendicitis: Presence of Any of 10 CT Features Versus Radiologists' Gestalt Assessment

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.

Low-dose (2-mSv) computed tomography for suspected appendicitis: Applicability in an emergency department

OBJECTIVES

To document the level of interobserver agreement and compare the diagnostic performances of emergency physicians and radiologists at interpreting low radiation CT images of acute appendicitis in adolescents and young adults.

METHODS

One hundred and seven adolescents and young adult patients (aged 15 to 44years) that underwent 2-mSv low-dose CT for suspected acute appendicitis between June and December in 2013 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Three emergency physicians and three radiologists with different experiences of low-dose CT independently reviewed CT images. These six physicians rated the likelihood of acute appendicitis using a 5-point Likert scale. We calculated interobserver agreement and compared the diagnostic performances between emergency physicians and radiologists. And diagnostic confidence was also assessed using the likelihood of acute appendicitis.

RESULTS

Acute appendicitis was pathologically confirmed in 42 patients (39%); the remaining 65 patients were considered not to have appendicitis. Fleiss' Kappa for reliability of agreement between emergency physicians and radiologists for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis was 0.720 (95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.685-0.726). Pooled areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) for a diagnosis of appendicitis were 0.904 and 0.944 for emergency physicians and radiologists, respectively, and these AUC values were not significantly different (95% confidence interval, -0.087, 0.007; p=0.0855).

CONCLUSION

The emergency physicians and radiologists showed good interobserver agreement and comparable diagnostic performances for appendicitis in adolescents and adults using low-dose CT images. Low-dose CT could be a useful tool for the diagnosis of appendicitis by emergency physicians.

Comparison of filtered back projection and iterative reconstruction in diagnosing appendicitis at 2-mSv CT

PURPOSE

To compare radiologists' diagnostic performance and confidence, and subjective image quality between filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR) at 2-mSv appendiceal CT.

METHODS

The institutional review board approved this retrospective study and waived the requirement for informed consent. We included 107 adolescents and young adults (age, 29.8 ± 8.5 years; 64 females) undergoing 2-mSv CT for suspected appendicitis. Appendicitis was pathologically confirmed in 42 patients. Seven readers with different experience levels independently reviewed the CT images reconstructed using FBP and IR (iDose(4), Philips). They rated both the likelihood of appendicitis and subjective image quality on 5-point Likert scales. Diagnostic confidence was assessed using the likelihood of appendicitis, proportion of indeterminate interpretations, and 3-point normal appendix visualization score. We used receiver operating characteristic analyses, Wilcoxon's signed-rank tests, and McNemar's tests.

RESULTS

The pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.96 for both FBP and IR (95% CI for the difference, -0.02, 0.02; P = 0.73). The AUC difference was not significant in any of the individual readers (P ≥ 0.21). For the majority of the readers, the diagnostic confidence was not significantly different between the two reconstruction methods. Subjective image quality tended to be higher with IR for all readers (P ≤ 0.70), showing significant differences for four readers (P ≤ 0.040).

CONCLUSION

When diagnosing appendicitis at 2-mSv CT in adolescents and young adults, FBP and IR were comparable in radiologists' diagnostic performance and confidence while IR exhibited higher subjective image quality than FBP.

Initial Performance of Radiologists and Radiology Residents in Interpreting Low-Dose (2-mSv) Appendiceal CT

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to prospectively evaluate the initial diagnostic performance and learning curve of a community of radiologists and residents in interpreting 2-mSv appendiceal CT.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We included 46 attending radiologists and 153 radiology residents from 22 hospitals who completed an online training course of 30 2-mSv CT cases. Appendicitis was confirmed in 14 cases. Most of the readers had limited (≤ 10 cases, n = 32) or no (n = 118) prior experience with low-dose appendiceal CT. The order of cases was randomized for each reader. A multireader multicase ROC analysis was performed. Generalized estimating equations were used to model the learning curves in diagnostic performance.

RESULTS

Diagnostic performance gradually improved with years of training. The average AUC was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.90-0.98), 0.92 (0.88-0.96), 0.90 (0.85-0.96), and 0.86 (0.80-0.92) for the attending radiologists, senior residents, 2nd-year residents, and 1st-year residents, respectively. We did not observe any notable intrareader learning curves over the training course of the 30 cases except a decrease in reading time. Diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity were significantly affected by the reader training level and prior overall experience with appendiceal CT but not by the prior specific experience with low-dose appendiceal CT.

CONCLUSION

The learning curve is likely prolonged and forms gradually over years by overall radiology training and clinical experience in general rather than by experience with low-dose appendiceal CT specifically.